Why does
- Thread starter Pete Wass
- Start date
Boyd Allen
Active member
The internal design of most triggers require an angle so that the sear will be pushed out of the way of the cocking piece when the trigger is pulled. The one exception, in Remington compatible triggers, that I can think of, is the Kenyon.
IMO any test of the effect of bolt up thrust on accuracy that does not involve a very close bolt to rear action bridge fit probably exaggerates the importance of this area of design as it applies to the best custom Benchrest actions, or other actions that have been tightened up in this area.
IMO any test of the effect of bolt up thrust on accuracy that does not involve a very close bolt to rear action bridge fit probably exaggerates the importance of this area of design as it applies to the best custom Benchrest actions, or other actions that have been tightened up in this area.
Pete Wass
Well-known member
From what I have observed
When the bolt cocks all the slack in the rear of the bolt is projected to the bottom lug thus lifting the top lug off the abutment. I was wondering if with a round chambered the bolt would be forced down in the rear and both lugs then engage the abutments.
I have seen a lot written about banana shaped cases reducing accuracy. Thinking about the bolt situation, it would seem to make bananas of all of them if they don't seve to take the list out of the cocked bolt.
Looking at my bolts it is easy to see the wear marks on the tops of them at the rear near the bolt handles. It would seem to me that a 90* sear arangement that might minimize this would be preferable; of course there is always the floating head design to consider.
When the bolt cocks all the slack in the rear of the bolt is projected to the bottom lug thus lifting the top lug off the abutment. I was wondering if with a round chambered the bolt would be forced down in the rear and both lugs then engage the abutments.
I have seen a lot written about banana shaped cases reducing accuracy. Thinking about the bolt situation, it would seem to make bananas of all of them if they don't seve to take the list out of the cocked bolt.
Looking at my bolts it is easy to see the wear marks on the tops of them at the rear near the bolt handles. It would seem to me that a 90* sear arangement that might minimize this would be preferable; of course there is always the floating head design to consider.
Pete Wass
Well-known member
Huuh !
To the same degree a bolt that is pushed up as far as it can go? I guess up is up ( being a little bit pregnant) but there must be the same clearance between the top lug that there is clearance for the bolt at the rear aye?
To the same degree a bolt that is pushed up as far as it can go? I guess up is up ( being a little bit pregnant) but there must be the same clearance between the top lug that there is clearance for the bolt at the rear aye?
F
Fireball Fred
Guest
just my opinion
a 90 degree surface would be good to start but as it wore the corners would round making it subject to failure. that would be a playground for lawyers!! the angled surfaces are more durable and thus less of a playground for lawyers. just my .02 Fred
a 90 degree surface would be good to start but as it wore the corners would round making it subject to failure. that would be a playground for lawyers!! the angled surfaces are more durable and thus less of a playground for lawyers. just my .02 Fred
Pete Wass
Well-known member
HAve you ever looked
at the sear surfaces inside some triggers? They are 90* and don't seem to ever wear enough to cause any trouble. There are production rifles that use a 90* cocking piece- trigger bar engagement I am told; Copers and Kimbers, I think.
It just seems to me a very sloppy standard the BR community has accepted as the norm. Of course when one looks at most custom actions they are pretty much Remington based.
The Borden Bumps seem like a pretty good solution but why not correct it in the beginning?
at the sear surfaces inside some triggers? They are 90* and don't seem to ever wear enough to cause any trouble. There are production rifles that use a 90* cocking piece- trigger bar engagement I am told; Copers and Kimbers, I think.
It just seems to me a very sloppy standard the BR community has accepted as the norm. Of course when one looks at most custom actions they are pretty much Remington based.
The Borden Bumps seem like a pretty good solution but why not correct it in the beginning?
None of this, by the way, is particularly new. I'd bet not too many folks know that Remington fooled with this with the rimfire 40x's a long time ago. There are a few of them out there that have eccentric bolts that are a few tenth's bigger on the sides so when they are locked down they lock up tighter to reduce the jack up, I've seen them. Been told they never did anything to produce because they were that much more expensive to make relative to the percieved gain
jackie schmidt
New member
Pete
How would you get it to dis-engage..........jackie
How would you get it to dis-engage..........jackie
F
f d shuster
Guest
Remington triggers
Bill Calfee beat this subject to death in numerous issues of "Precision Shooting" about 2 yrs. ago.
Bill Calfee beat this subject to death in numerous issues of "Precision Shooting" about 2 yrs. ago.
Pete Wass
Well-known member
The trigger ?
or the bolt? The 90* sear surfaces inside a Remington trigger dis-engage readily so I don't see that it would be a problem. As for the bolt, I have never felt a bolt that had the bumps on it but I assume they dis-engage easily. The cocking piece on my 788 has a 90* surface on it and the Canjar I have on it works the very best as did the stock trigger I took off it. Perhaps this a contributing factor to the accuracy some say exists with 788's.
I noticed on Bill Calfee's modified 52 trigger there was a 90* surface on the trigger bar. Thinking about this a bit I am wondering if perhaps the angled surfaces allow triggers to be fitted with less precision to allow them to work. In the case of mas-produced rifles, anything that allowed thing to work with bigger tollerances would seem to be preferable for less precise applications. In the case of "Custom" stuff, why would we want that sort of thing? Why not have things tightned up; couldn't hurt anything I wouldn't think. I find it pretty ugly to look into the front of an action and see that there is stronger wear marks on one of the abuttments; doesn't seem that precise or desireable to me.
or the bolt? The 90* sear surfaces inside a Remington trigger dis-engage readily so I don't see that it would be a problem. As for the bolt, I have never felt a bolt that had the bumps on it but I assume they dis-engage easily. The cocking piece on my 788 has a 90* surface on it and the Canjar I have on it works the very best as did the stock trigger I took off it. Perhaps this a contributing factor to the accuracy some say exists with 788's.
I noticed on Bill Calfee's modified 52 trigger there was a 90* surface on the trigger bar. Thinking about this a bit I am wondering if perhaps the angled surfaces allow triggers to be fitted with less precision to allow them to work. In the case of mas-produced rifles, anything that allowed thing to work with bigger tollerances would seem to be preferable for less precise applications. In the case of "Custom" stuff, why would we want that sort of thing? Why not have things tightned up; couldn't hurt anything I wouldn't think. I find it pretty ugly to look into the front of an action and see that there is stronger wear marks on one of the abuttments; doesn't seem that precise or desireable to me.
Last edited:
Pete Wass
Well-known member
Been a while since I owned a 52 so didn't remember or know if Bill may have re-shaped it to add his extension.
Bill Leeper
New member
Jackie,
The pivot would have to be substantially below the lowest contact point. The contact between the sear and trigger could be anywhere on the circle described by the front of the sear when it pivoted. Just look at a Timney trigger (or any other for that matter) for a Mauser 98. The further from the pivot the contact point (between sear and trigger) is, the lighter the load on the trigger and, potentially, the lighter the pull which can be achieved.
When I adapted a Remington trigger to my P14 match rifle, it was step backward in this regard. I should have just built a trigger. I knew how to do a three lever conversion on a Remington though and had that stuck in my head.
This subject has been flogged pretty severely from time to time but BR actions and triggers seem to work remarkably well in spite of this shortcoming so there hasn't been a big move to correct the "problem".
Savage actions manage to divorce the sear load from the bolt by capturing the strker between the sear and the top of the locking lug raceway. BRNO rifles accomplished this by having the cocking piece run in a tee slot so the sear would not raise the bolt up; assuming the tee slot fit was good.
If I made an action, I would use a vertical contact between the cocking piece and sear. Regards, Bill.
The pivot would have to be substantially below the lowest contact point. The contact between the sear and trigger could be anywhere on the circle described by the front of the sear when it pivoted. Just look at a Timney trigger (or any other for that matter) for a Mauser 98. The further from the pivot the contact point (between sear and trigger) is, the lighter the load on the trigger and, potentially, the lighter the pull which can be achieved.
When I adapted a Remington trigger to my P14 match rifle, it was step backward in this regard. I should have just built a trigger. I knew how to do a three lever conversion on a Remington though and had that stuck in my head.
This subject has been flogged pretty severely from time to time but BR actions and triggers seem to work remarkably well in spite of this shortcoming so there hasn't been a big move to correct the "problem".
Savage actions manage to divorce the sear load from the bolt by capturing the strker between the sear and the top of the locking lug raceway. BRNO rifles accomplished this by having the cocking piece run in a tee slot so the sear would not raise the bolt up; assuming the tee slot fit was good.
If I made an action, I would use a vertical contact between the cocking piece and sear. Regards, Bill.
This very thing got beat up on a thread a while back. If someone wants 90* on a action....call Kelbly's, they will do you one and make it so a Anschutz trigger will fit. They have done them....tested them extensively....and determined no advantage on a Centerfire.
Hovis
Hovis