Jewell JT-08 Bottom Safety

M

mrjohns

Guest
I'm thinking about getting one of these Jewell JT-08 for a rimfire build. I have a Shilen sporter taper ratchet barrel and a Falcon repeater action to be bought. I have never used a trigger with the safety on the bottom and would like to here from some of you about it.
 
I'm thinking about getting one of these Jewell JT-08 for a rimfire build. I have a Shilen sporter taper ratchet barrel and a Falcon repeater action to be bought. I have never used a trigger with the safety on the bottom and would like to here from some of you about it.

The Jewel trigger with bottom safety works OK on an IR50/50 Sporter build. When I built my Sporter, a working safety was required ... I've recently read that it is no longer required for IR50 Sporter class. The Jewel trigger with the bottom safety is a bit more time consuming to fit, because the opening in the trigger guard needs to be widened somewhat to accommodate the safety lever ... but it's no big deal to get it right. To be honest, it's functional, but I never engage the safety during a match and it's really a waste of money unless the rifle is used for hunting, or where required by rules or law. John
 
The reason IR50/50 removed the safety rule for sporters is the newer Jewell trigger with safety (about the only option for a sporter prior to the rule change) is unreliable. Spare springs (the part that breaks) are often unobtanium.

Unless you have a screaming need for a safety I'd recommend passing on any Jewell with a safety for a dedicated bench rest rifle. bob
 
The reason IR50/50 removed the safety rule for sporters is the newer Jewell trigger with safety (about the only option for a sporter prior to the rule change) is unreliable. Spare springs (the part that breaks) are often unobtanium.

Unless you have a screaming need for a safety I'd recommend passing on any Jewell with a safety for a dedicated bench rest rifle. bob

You might want to refresh your working knowledge of defaming a product on the forums, especially if it's factually wrong.
A lot of the reason that rule no longer exists was that it was a impractical remnant of the past, nobody used or really needed safety's on sporters, probably never did.
 
You might want to refresh your working knowledge of defaming a product on the forums, especially if it's factually wrong.
A lot of the reason that rule no longer exists was that it was a impractical remnant of the past, nobody used or really needed safety's on sporters, probably never did.

If this is true...maybe you can explain the rationale for a keeping a removable clip/magazine fed action.

Maybe a remnant of the past that nobody uses or needs as well?
 
Tim: Nothing I said is factually wrong.

Perhaps I should ask how you know about the reason(s) for the recent rule change. I know you were NOT involved in the decision process or the re-write.

Should you like to share your knowledge, perhaps the OP will be enlightened. Me, I don't give a hoot. bob
 
If this is true...maybe you can explain the rationale for a keeping a removable clip/magazine fed action.

Maybe a remnant of the past that nobody uses or needs as well?

Jeff, no answer. Remember the whole sporter class, to some degree, is a remnant. I suppose a safety you don't use is comparable to a clip you don't use.
 
Tim: Nothing I said is factually wrong.

Perhaps I should ask how you know about the reason(s) for the recent rule change. I know you were NOT involved in the decision process or the re-write.

Should you like to share your knowledge, perhaps the OP will be enlightened. Me, I don't give a hoot. bob

My knowledge consists primarily of the fact that you would be in no position to comment on that componant's overall reliability based on hearsay, rumors in the wind, or tinkering with 2 or 3, based on how many are on the field.
 
Last edited:
I'm thinking about getting one of these Jewell JT-08 for a rimfire build. I have a Shilen sporter taper ratchet barrel and a Falcon repeater action to be bought. I have never used a trigger with the safety on the bottom and would like to here from some of you about it.

If after all the constructive discussion above, you are still considering a trigger with the safety, I believe the JT-09 may be a better option for your anticipated action.

I believe the JT-08 has the built in bolt release, the JT-09 does not. I also believe the Falcon has it's own bolt release and does not rely on one in the trigger.

When I built my sporter several years ago, I used the JT-09 with a Turbo because the rules required it. If I was building one now, given the rules as they are, I would opt for something without the safety.
 
If it were me I wouldn't go with a jewel at all I would go with a bix-n-andy it cost more but is more reliable and lighter which is a plus for a sporter.There was a run of jewels that were breaking springs like going out of style maybe they have that under control. With all the bix-n-andys being fitted there should be a glut of used jewels for folks trying to save some $, keep an eye on the classifieds.
MC
 
Rule changes....

The rules change for a number of reasons - some good some not so good. Seldom does a change fall in the good range for everybody.
 
Back
Top