The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Now there's a thought that hadn't occurred to us before...

How about a left paw bolt, such that the right can remain near the trigger and keep the barrel on target whilst the left actuates the bolt and feeds in a new canned bang? Anyone ever done that?

Assuming your right eye is on your scope and your snout doesn't get in the way, your left eye can see what you are doing when reloading without coming off target adding to your speed.

When I get round to a custom single shot rifle, it will be this configuration.

meles meles wrote:Now there's a thought that hadn't occurred to us before...

How about a left paw bolt, such that the right can remain near the trigger and keep the barrel on target whilst the left actuates the bolt and feeds in a new canned bang? Anyone ever done that?

Return to......!!!

'Commerce oblige". The manufacturer of the INCH wanted to respond to a "demand", and I reluctantly accepted as the stiff design allowed it. They made the F-INCH witj 2 ports and, to the best of my knowledge, no one of the 'interested" concretised......The receivers made should be still iddle on a shelf....

I said "relunctantly' as this wide opening just in front of the shooters face represent the best way for escaping gases in case of an always possible blpwback. A real potential risk to consider.

Not to mention the extra opening for dust and rain....

On a shooting point of view, this "can" be an option for BenchRest when, shooting from the bench, it is customary to launch 5 rounds as fast as possible, although this can be arguable, as the right hand is handier than the heart one...should need a movement analysis to conclude??

On prone and slow fire shooting,, this become a nonsense, as the position must be maintained and then better only one hand moved...

I would add one thing: Feeding from the left makes the shooter concentrate on the feeding port, with no attention to the right one....Would this not create a situation of possible double feeding???.... At least; with only one port, attention is only draw on this one, and ejection is observed, or the empty removed by hand before an other round is introduced.

Think better to leave the double porting to machine guns...and in this case; there is a feeder to cope only with the left port......

R.G.C

R.G.C wrote: I said "relunctantly' as this wide opening just in front of the shooters face represent the best way for escaping gases in case of an always possible blpwback. A real potential risk to consider.

Good point: we're quite attached to our snout and would like to remain so. With modern materials and manufacturing techniques this really shouldn't be an issue, but we don't like taking risks unnecessarily...

meles meles wrote:

R.G.C wrote: I said "relunctantly' as this wide opening just in front of the shooters face represent the best way for escaping gases in case of an always possible blpwback. A real potential risk to consider.

Good point: we're quite attached to our snout and would like to remain so. With modern materials and manufacturing techniques this really shouldn't be an issue, but we don't like taking risks unnecessarily...

Whatever the design precautions, blowbacks caused most of the time (if not alway) by users errors happens ofren enough. I have several quite recent examples including;
-Blowbacks by overpressure (4) Damages to bolt in each case.
-Shooting the wrong calibre ammo (2)
-Shooting a patch (2)
-Double feeding (1)
Where are the modern materials and manufacturing techniques into that??

R.G.C

Well, the current state of the art in engineering steels is perhaps thermomechanically processed super bainitic steel with a yield stress in excess of 2.5 GPa, id est around 6 times stronger than the steels most actions seem to be made from. It's far tougher too. It ought to shrug off any of the errors outlined.

BUT..

It seems modern materials aren't used in rifle actions, so we'll take your excellent advice and err on the side of caution.

meles meles wrote:Well, the current state of the art in engineering steels is perhaps thermomechanically processed super bainitic steel with a yield stress in excess of 2.5 GPa, id est around 6 times stronger than the steels most actions seem to be made from. It's far tougher too. It ought to shrug off any of the errors outlined.

BUT..

It seems modern materials aren't used in rifle actions, so we'll take your excellent advice and err on the side of caution.

The steels category you metion is not a construction steel, nor even a tool steel..Moreover, to the best of my non-Wikipedia limited knowledge, it is still experimental and extremely limited in its applications....not mentionning the 'mise e, oeuvre' difficulties...

One of the first things I consider when I hear,read of, see or study an action model is the materials and treatments used for bolt and receiver, and this vary a lot, even when conventionnal well proven construction steels are used. For receivers only, full hardness can vary from some 30 to 52 HRC (and even more for Gruenigs for instance) and raw price from 1 to 3!!.

This discussion turns byzantine and see no reason for me to stay in it....definitely

R.G.C

R.G.C wrote:
This discussion turns byzantine and see no reason for me to stay in it....definitely

R.G.C

It looks like You've been Badgered!

R.G.C wrote: This discussion turns byzantine and see no reason for me to stay in it....definitely

R.G.C

Thanks for the useful advice ooman, we're sorry to see you go.

*Waves bye-bye and wanders off to look at some allegedly rare, experimental and not in the least bit useful super bainitic steel *

So, any definitive answer yet upon if there is an action that can feed 6.5 x 55 SWE, 7.5x55 Swiss 7.61x 51 NATO ?