You've insulted Mousingfield twice and me once. With respect to the Mousingfield action, your only contribution was to claim the bolt and knob is "butt-ugly".
If you don't like the thread, do us all a favor and go elsewhere.
What is the best CRF action to build on?
- Thread starter Buster
- Start date
You've insulted Mousingfield twice and me once. With respect to the Mousingfield action, your only contribution was to claim the bolt and knob is "butt-ugly".
If you don't like the thread, do us all a favor and go elsewhere.
Maybe I shouldn't comment particularly on this post, but it's confusing to me. It seems you've not read Harold Vaughn as the connection is non-existent between the two systems, and what exactly do you mean by "fight deformation of the lugs?"
Or "harness it?"
There should be NO deformation of the lugs, ever IMO....
OK, I'm going to find out if you're really INTERESTED in facts? Or just like to compare opinions. Harold Vaughn wrote his book in the interest of separating FACT from OPINION. As an engineer he places the "why" before the 'what".....Bill Calfee also wrote a book in which he expounded on lots of stuff that WORKS. But he's not so good at the "why." I'm not taking from either book, it's just that the "why" is where the real juice is.
I don't have a personal dislike of the guy....I don't know him from Adam's off ox. I DO have a personal dislike of folks playing fast and loose with "facts." He has a legitimate product. No magic, no gain even IMO, but "Snake Oil?" no, not quite.....just far from innovative. (That said, I DO, REALLY, dislike the name Mausingfield.....but I'm a word guy. I'm picky about presentation. I also think that Carlocks LRKM acronym is silly) There are lots of products out there. Some of them exhibit superior function, some superior accuracy, some look good. ALL LEGITIMATE PRODUCTS, so "no, not Snake Oil" just not really innovative.
I can't make any connection here between your first sentence and the last but here goes..... #1-No, I don't "claim" it, it just DOES. That's a fact, due to design. It completely eliminates the entire problem by isolating the bolthead from the bind. The FACT is that it completely addresses the "problem" outlined by Mausingfield, BETTER than the Mausingfield.....it's just that the bolt head is only a small part of the total accuracy equation. #2-Again, no. Accuracy is defined by results. Period. And by measurements. I don't really enjoy shooting rifles which leave air in my groups at 100yds....I build and use 1/10-1/4moa rifles. I have lots of rifles which WILL shoot into the same hole "all day long"......you could do it, my neighbor kid who's never fired a rifle could do it. I could set the rifle up and tie the cat to it and could put 5 bullets into one raggedy hole at 100yds. But if I'm going out to shoot a deer in the woods I'll carry my vintage 1954 M70 cuz I like it and it'll hit a deer 100% of the time and If'n I was looking down the ivories at M'Bogo who's looking back like I owe him money......I ain't CARING about accuracy, I be want me some controlled feed....
I have no idea what it is you're implying here. "All that, and a lot more" absolutely DO HAPPEN when the trigger is pulled, it's just that his "solution" is flawed. Kinda' like the problem "we're gonna' run out of oil" and the solution "so we'll fix it with solar".....the SOLUTION is flawed. Solar power is a stupid "solution" and the only reason it's even a topic of discussion is because unscrupulous people define a "problem" and offer a "solution" that makes them rich. The Mausingfield guy ain't even gonna' get rich, and he ain't ripping people off, but that doesn't mean it's "better." His is a "Ford VS Chevy" argument. Also, you make the statement "the proof lies in the fact that you don't use a floating bolthead"......
We define "proof" differently, you and I
This isn't a "proof" of anything except that changing this interface isn't the whole answer to the problem.....may even point out that it's only a TINY part of the problem.....
Do you have an explanation for WHY the Savage floating bolthead "marginally improves accuracy" in your opinion? I'm disappointed in your use of the term "sloppy machine work" as the actual FACT is that the Savage is held to significantly closer tolerances than a classic "good" rifle like the old pre-64 70....but that aside, if you're impressed with ARC's presentation then that's enough!As Dr Hook sez...."some folks likes pork chops and some folks likes ham hocks"
I've seen a lot of presentations.... in some cases I'm impressed with the presentation, in some cases with the information. And in most cases I'm just not impressed a'Tall......
F'rinstance, on the subject of testing and "thinking outside the box" I enjoy 'Mythbusters' style shows. Some better than others.I like Dustin's presentations on 'Smarter Every Day' more than Adam and Jamie because he's SMARTER, better educated......he asks better question and structures better testing regimens. But in both of their cases I really enjoy that BOTH OF THEM are more interested in facts than in their collective egos. Both of them have re-done shows because a reader has emailed or written in showing a flawed premise.
I like this.
This is how real progress is made. You cain't learn to play the song without you play it over and over a thousand times......
So, if you want to point out HOW and WHY the Mausingfield is superior to a Win70 controlled feed, I'm lissening. I heard his spiel.....wasn't impressed two yrs ago, ain't now.
al
When you referred to the guy as Sir Mousinger (or whatever it was you used), the connotation was one of disrespect, disbelief, belittlement - that's why I asked if you had a personal dislike for him or if you thought he was selling snake oil.
I think I understand now what you are saying: Savage receiver lugs are machined square with the bore. The float allows the bolt head to square itself with the barrel bore, regardless of how far out of alignment the bolt body is. So I can believe that.
I was thinking the bolt head needed to float because the receiver lugs were not/may not be machined square to the bore, in which case the bolt face would be just as out-of-square as the receiver lugs.
I've only owned one Savage rifle, and it was dangerous and unfit to shoot straight out of the box. My skepticism of Savage QC and machining prowess is not without merit.
You claim Mausingfield's solution is "flawed". I don't know enough to know whether it is or isn't. I'm curious why you think that it is.
I didn't say the Mausingfield was superior to an M70. The truth is I don't know which CRF action is best, that's why I posted this thread.
I've only owned one Savage rifle, and it was dangerous and unfit to shoot straight out of the box. My skepticism of Savage QC and machining prowess is not without merit.
Explain pls
Well now we're getting somewhere......what you consider to be important.
-adjustable trigger?
-switch barrel?
-value?
-price?
-weight?
-locking bolt?
-type of sights?
-detachable mag?
You've actually been given a lot of answers for such a non-specific question....I don't see where you've stated an accuracy parameter for instance, nor described your intended usage. "Hunting" isn't a description. Nor is "place a bullet down range accurately."
Butch Lambert, the guy you're yelling at, owns CRF rifles netting the worth of a small country. He knows what he wants and whereof he speaks.
Unless you're unconstrained by budget I'll recommend cannibalizing a Win 70 Classic. Except that the 6.5CM has the potential to be an extremely accurate round (If Lapua will get off the dime) and controlled feed rifles aren't capable of being truly accurate.
BTW what you refer to as "slop" in the MRC is simply not an issue. Unless you've a rational, mechanical reason to talk about it, and can explain why it's deleterious, pls refrain. How many bare actions have you wiggled around?
Judging specifically by your assertion earlier regarding an "unsafe Savage" and your statements re "Mausingfield leaving you speechless" I'm just not sure what would make you happy.....your parameters aren't clearly stated.
The tang was bent. The bolt head would drag on the safety as you closed the bolt. Savage replaced the rifle under warranty, but took 8 weeks to do so.
I believe all my questions have been answered - thanks to all who contributed.
I'm not yelling at anyone - I just don't think the insults were called for.
I don't know another kinder, gentler word to use in place of "slop". I was speaking of the MRC actions, so unless you work for MRC, I'm not sure why you were offended. Regardless, I apologize if I stepped on your toes.
I never said the Mausingfield left me speechless. I stated his videos left me with no questions to ask.
After several good recommendations, I stated the MRC would likely suffice for what I wish to do.
If there is an industry-standard chart that defines rifle accuracy, it would certainly help. Kindly post a link to it.
Jay Cutright
New member
??? for LAW rifles.
I had a LAW Professional here in 26 Nosler last month, I was impressed enough to call LAW and ask about action availability. I'm now waiting for a LAW action to come in that I'm considering building in maybe 6 or 6.5 creedmoor.
I like crf actions. I like Winchesters. I could always make my Winchester rifles shoot better than the Remington's I had. Kinda surprised me to here someone say crf rifles were not as accurate as other rifles.
I can't wait to see how a custom barreled LAW shoots.
I had a LAW Professional here in 26 Nosler last month, I was impressed enough to call LAW and ask about action availability. I'm now waiting for a LAW action to come in that I'm considering building in maybe 6 or 6.5 creedmoor.
I like crf actions. I like Winchesters. I could always make my Winchester rifles shoot better than the Remington's I had. Kinda surprised me to here someone say crf rifles were not as accurate as other rifles.
I can't wait to see how a custom barreled LAW shoots.
S
shortgrass
Guest
I think you are absolutely correct, Butch!
Thanks for the input. It's always nice to hear from those with hands-on experience. Hurry and get that rifle built and post back
These manufacturers use monstrous cad files to build their actions - you'd think they could convert those files into animated video that would demonstrate the features and benefits of their products. Instead, they put out low quality video with low quality audio, and very little information. Or worse, they expect third-parties to promote the product.
Video of game animals taking a bullet tells me nothing. Hand-held camera work makes me nauseous. The firing line on a windy day has to be about the worst possible time and place for an interview with a company executive.
They all need serious help in the marketing department.
***Rant over***
Video of game animals taking a bullet tells me nothing. Hand-held camera work makes me nauseous. The firing line on a windy day has to be about the worst possible time and place for an interview with a company executive.
They all need serious help in the marketing department.
***Rant over***
Last edited:
zfastmalibu
New member
.
Last edited:
jackie schmidt
New member
All of the criticle areas on the Mausingfield are supposed to be CNC'd, that bolt face is probably generated with an end mill style cutter, and probably runs truely straight with the rest of the criticle areas.
I would assume the action face would be generated on the same setup as the threads as well, but if is not showing 100% contact, something is amiss. I would like to see a picture of that.
I find it difficult to believe that they would let that get out the door, knowing that it is something that could be easily seen by any competent craftsman.
Last edited:
I have also seen a mausingfield with only one lug contacting it was in my shop last week. I was a bit surprised. this action was smooth and it truly is easy to look at. the internal lugs have a gold color to them, and they arent very wide or thick. Nice action but i couldnt help but wonder why the one lug wasnt contacting . maybe when there is a cartrige in the chamber it squares the bolt head up and they both touch??? Lee
zfastmalibu
New member
.
Last edited:
jackie schmidt
New member
Much is made about the "torodal" shape of the bolt lugs and action abutments.
Wouldn't this allow the bolt to act more like a wedge, not only exerting force straight back as in a standard 90 degree lug, but also exerting force outward against the radial strength of the receiver. The standard bolt thrust that is present upon firing can now be multiplied by the wedging action of the bolt lugs, resulting in a greater possibility of lugg setback.
The strongest single direction thread is a Buttress Thread, used on applications where there is load always going one way. In a way, a standard 90 degree lug uses the same principle, exerting force in one direction with minimum load in other areas. You are basically relying on the shear strength of the parts to keep everything intact.
With the Toroidal surface, (spherical), you have now compounded the force against the receiver ring.
This is probably a non issue, as the inherent strength of the parts is sufficient to avoid any set back.
I know the designers of this action are thinking out of the box. But as with many new ideas, you have to be careful that the solution to a particular problem does not give rise to another.
Wouldn't this allow the bolt to act more like a wedge, not only exerting force straight back as in a standard 90 degree lug, but also exerting force outward against the radial strength of the receiver. The standard bolt thrust that is present upon firing can now be multiplied by the wedging action of the bolt lugs, resulting in a greater possibility of lugg setback.
The strongest single direction thread is a Buttress Thread, used on applications where there is load always going one way. In a way, a standard 90 degree lug uses the same principle, exerting force in one direction with minimum load in other areas. You are basically relying on the shear strength of the parts to keep everything intact.
With the Toroidal surface, (spherical), you have now compounded the force against the receiver ring.
This is probably a non issue, as the inherent strength of the parts is sufficient to avoid any set back.
I know the designers of this action are thinking out of the box. But as with many new ideas, you have to be careful that the solution to a particular problem does not give rise to another.
Last edited:
Pete Wass
Well-known member
zfastmalibu
New member
I agree. A solution to a problem that wasnt there. I want my the pressure from the case to square everything up anyhow. Why would I want the bolt to stay cocked in the action? I know its a small amount, but now the bolt face isnt even square. Either way, cant say I like anything about it.