Bolt Action Cocking Question

[Bergeron]

Fearno, true, I did not intend to debate Masuer vs. Enfield, just COO cs. COC. Is anyone aware of how much locktime is slowed on a COC or how much the trigger is effected by COC? If we can get some numbers, we might be closer to understanding.

 

[rbernie]

Is anyone aware of how much locktime is slowed on a COC or how much the trigger is effected by COC?

Ya know, I don't think that the COC vs COO thing has much to do with lock time. Look at the COC rifles of note - the Enfield and the small ring Mausers. They both hail from the end of the 19th century, and both sport a lock time in the 4-5ms range. They both have long, heavy firing pins and relatively weak firing pin springs.

Now look at the prototypical COO - the large ring Mausers. They, too, hail from the late 19th century. They also have long, heavy firing pins and relatively weak firing pin springs, and they too have a lock time in the 4ms-5ms range. Other Mauser-style actions of the early 20th century (03 Springfield, 1914/1917 Enfield) also have similar lock times. I believe that the prevailing emphasis of the day was on reliability and rate of fire; increasing the firing pin spring tension directly increases the force needed to work the bolt, and decreasing the firing pin weight likely had negative impacts upon reliability.

It's not until you get to more modern bolt-actions that you begin to see a trend towards lightening the firing pin (primarily via the use of more advanced materials), shortening its travel, and increasing the firing pin spring rate - all designed to shorten lock time. In my mind, the primary lock time issue is one of age and technological knowledge, not one inherent to the design itself.

Now let's put this in context. If I recall correctly, the average new-production Win70 has a 2.5ms-3ms lock time, the Rem700 around 2.5ms, and a new-production Ruger 77MkII will sport a 4ms lock time. This means that the Enfield and small-ring Mausers and large-ring Mausers and Springfield '03s and Enfield Model 1914/1917s will have a lock time between 1ms and 2ms greater, on average, than a stock sporter.

But I firmly believe that if Tubbs made a lightweight firing pin for the small-ring Mausers or Enfields, they'd be more than competitive in terms of lock time with the best of today's sporters. I'm also not convinced that lock time is as much of an issue for field use than it is for the bench racing crowd....

 

[Mike Hull]

For what it's worth, the rifle with about the fastest lock time of any production long gun is the(long discontinued) Remington 788. It's a COO, with rear locking lugs.

It's so much faster than the model 700, that in timed comparisons, the bullet from the 788 is striking the 100 yard target, before the projectile clears the muzzle of the 700.

For years they were sought after actions with the bench rest crowd, because of the fast lock time, and stiff receiver, but with newer custom actions, and the dwindling availability of 788's, and the parts, they just seem to be fading away slowly.

 

[SMLE]

The 1917 is NOT a Lee Enfield, nor is it in any way "adapted" from the Lee Enfield. It is a Mauser. While the 1917 and Patt. 1914 rifles cock on closing, they are quite different from the Lee action rifles. The bolt throw is longer and it is virtually impossible to work the bolt without breaking your spot weld on the butt. The 1903 and other Mausers have the same issue. With just a little practice, you can work the bolt of a Lee Enfield without breaking your spot weld or taking your eye off the target. Especially prior to WWI, British Soldiers were very well drilled on bolt manipulation, trigger pressing and re-loading with chargers. The rate of fire for a Lee Enfield was 15 RPM or MORE, while the Mauser topped out a 15 RPM in British trials. The record set in 1914 of 38 AIMED shots in 60 seconds with a Lee Enfield still stands. And all 38 shots were placed within a 12" bull at 300 yards.

 

[Mike Hull]

...........Especially prior to WWI, British Soldiers were very well drilled on bolt manipulation, trigger pressing and re-loading with chargers. The rate of fire for a Lee Enfield was 15 RPM or MORE, while the Mauser topped out a 15 RPM in British trials. The record set in 1914 of 38 AIMED shots in 60 seconds with a Lee Enfield still stands. And all 38 shots were placed within a 12" bull at 300 yards.

At the battle of Mons, in 1914, the Germans thought the British were using machine guns their bolt action work was so fast. It decimated the German troops advancing in straight line formation. it was what kept the way outnumbered British from being annihilated.
But, within a year or so, the "old guard" was gone, thrown away in the sensless slaughter of attacking in line formation against the numerous entrenched Maxim guns of the Germans.
I don't know if they ever again had troops that practised the bolt action like the old guard did.

The leaders(British) learned nothing from Mons, and the casualties inflicted with mainly just BA SMLE rifles, and they continued this butchery until 1918.

 

[BruceB]

That claim of "15 rounds per minute or MORE" for the Lee Enfield is extremely conservative.

I say this on the basis of having been trained by Canadian Army regulars who were instructing in the nationwide Royal Canadian Army Cadet Corps. One of the standard "Tests of Training" (i.e.: did you learn what was being taught?) was this:

Standing "At Ease" on the firing point with the EMPTY #4 Rifle in hand, the student goes to prone on command, charger-loads ten rounds, and fires a certain minimum qualifying score in.....45 SECONDS. The "students" were mere boys (Cadets) of 14 years and up. I don't recall the qualifying score, although it was quite lenient. I seem to recall that we fired on a 100-yard target placed at fifty yards for this rapid-fire exercise, but it was fifty years ago, for Heaven's sake (grin). The vast majority of us kids passed this test. The training was only done on one evening per week and most Saturday mornings, so we weren't exactly grizzled veterans with years of rifle training.

There were some very elaborate summer camps, though, often thousands of miles from the Cadets' homes, where a wide variety of military skills were taught over eight weeks or so. (I fired the wonderful Bren LMG very extensively over several years of such camps....imagine, a government training its nation's children on.... gasp....MACHINEGUNS!) One of the available specialties was Rifle Coaching... I fired over TEN THOUSAND rounds of .303 in that course, from 200 to 1000 yards, every round recorded in a scorebook, and got PAID for it. Pure heaven for a gunlovin' teenager.

And yes, I do love and admire the #4 Rifle!

 

[BruceB]

I should have mentioned that the 45-second test above required that all ten rounds be fired for score within the time limit.

 

[Jim K]

A couple of comments.

First, extraction of a fired cartridge is rarely dependent on pulling back the bolt. Primary extraction for any decent bolt action is done by cams in the receiver bearing on the bolt handle or bolt lugs as the bolt handle is raised; only a small effort is needed for extracting the cartridge case once primary extraction has done most of the work. (Note that lack of primary extraction is a serious problem with many military auto rifles today, notably the FAL and M16. The M1 and M14 on the other hand, have quite good primary extraction.)

Two, when rapid firing, the SMLE (Rifle No. 1) and Rifle No. 4 bolt knobs are grasped by the thumb and forefinger; as the bolt is closed, the middle finger falls naturally on the trigger. The hand is never removed from the bolt until the magazine is empty. The relationship between the bolt handle and the trigger has as much or more to do with the ability to deliver rapid fire from these rifles as the cock on closing feature. The Pattern 1914/U.S. Model 1917 rifles are not as good in this regard, and it is nearly impossible with other rifles.

Lock time and some of the other issues discussed are not really relevant to the COC/COO question. As to uncocking a bolt on a loaded chamber, that should never be done! That is what safety catches are for. As for the half cock (or half bent) on British rifles, that was a holdover from the old rifles which had no other safety.

Jim

 

[BruceB]

Jim, pard;

In Canadian Army training, we were taught to NEVER grasp the #4 bolt handle in any way. The knob is cupped in the palm of the hand for the rearward stroke, and pushed closed with the heel of the hand for the forward stroke. The index finger comes naturally to the trigger. This method is lightning-fast and very certain of function, and it only uses two motions. There is no forward-stop-then-down, it is simply forward, with no hesitation or stoppage anywhere in the bolt movement.

This is a much easier action to accomplish than the grasping-of-the-knob technique, and in fact it works best for almost all bolt actions, regardless of action design. It's also much easier with a gloved or mittened hand, which is no small thing in the Canadian climate. Issue mitts had the flap-covered slot in the palms for the trigger finger, and it's very difficult to 'grasp' a bolt knob when wearing mittens, believe me.

On the issue of COO vs COC, it occurs to me that an easy personal comparison would be to try both, in the form of an as-issued Model 98 against a similar M96 Swede or M93 Spanish Mauser. The 93/96 have a longer cocking-piece fall, but that's really about the only major functional difference, except for the method of cocking, of course.

 

[Ivy Mike]

For all out speed, the smelly seems impossible to beat.

Now, would someone care to tell me what the Arisaka rifles happen to be? (COO or COC)

The action seems like it requires a strong pull to open as well as a stiff shove to close. I'm playing with my type 44 and mum-intact type 99 as we speak.
Also curious about the Krag in the safe, but don't feel like putting down the strongest bolt action rifle from WWII.

 

[Mike Hull]

Now, would someone care to tell me what the Arisaka rifles happen to be? (COO or COC)

COO. They're a Japanese version of the Mauser action, with some cosmetic, and safety changes.
Very strong action that got a bad name for awhile, after WWII because of some unscrupulous surplus dealers selling the Arisaka pot metal training rifle as the real thing.
Maybe they just didn't know.

They would blow up if fired.

 

[Bergeron]

Okay, I did not know that the small ring Mausers were COO, only that the 98 was a COC. Is there anyone with experience on both that can relate differences in bolt throw?

 

[JJohnston015]

The Arisaka I messed with was COC. I don't know what variant it was, but it was in good enough shape to have had the barrel set back and rechambered in .300 Savage. When I first handled it, something seemed wrong in the way it felt, like it was hanging up as the bolt went home. When I realized it was COC, I assumed the different feel was normal. Turned out it is.

 

[rbernie]

Backwards

Okay, I did not know that the small ring Mausers were COO, only that the 98 was a COC.

It's the other way around - the small ring Mausers are cock on close (COC) and the 98/large ring Mausers are cock on open (COO).

 

[goon]

I will agree that I don't really think one way is really any easier than the other, but I think that the Enfield is the fastest (but my M-39 does have it beat for smoothness).

You just have to know the "combination".
When I shoot my SMLE, I know that I have to work that bolt hard. Enfields often don't have real strong ejection so I make sure I have all I can get. I work the bolt with the palm and heel of my hand but I don't really close my hand around it.
It is something like:
Lift, PULL, forward/down. The bolt on my SMLE sort of closes itself when it closes. I just sort of keep a downward pressure on the bolt handle as I push it shut. When the round is fully chambered the bolt just sort of "falls" closed.
Very fast.
The rifle deserves its reputation for speed.

 

[Bergeron]

rbernie, thanks for the correction. My bad!

Still and all though, who's shot 'em both? (small ring COC Mauser vs. Mauser 98 COO) What did you think?

 

[rbernie]

I have numerous COO (commercial and large-ring Mauser) and COC (small-ring Mauser and Enfield) rifles, and at present I prefer the COC for field use with a sling.

There was another thread recently talking about the viability and wisdom of building up sporters on Mauser actions. IMO, getting a COC action is one of the biggest reasons why I spend the money to buy and builld upon '93/'95 Mauser actions. In fact, my next project will most likely be a Chilean 95 action (Loewe-built) chambered in 257 Roberts...

 

[JNewell]

The bolt on my SMLE sort of closes itself when it closes. I just sort of keep a downward pressure on the bolt handle as I push it shut.

That's really the bottom line, unless you're shooting BR or equivalent. In the field, I submit that most, maybe all, of us won't notice. I sure don't. The SMLE and small rings cock without my noticing when the bolt is manipulated normally.

 

[Mike Hull]

I figure everybody to their own preference, but you have to wonder why conversion kits were offered to make COC's, into COO's, but not the other way around.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

probably because it's easier to do. making a COO into a COC takes some millwork on the bolt.

I want to make a 98 mauser a COC sometime.

 

[Jim K]

Hi, BruceB and guys,

I never was in the Canadian army, but I learned to operate an SMLE from a fellow who had been in exotic tourist areas like El Alamein, Tobruk, Italy, and places like that. I have no doubt that using the cupped hand will work, as you say, with any bolt action rifle, and will be fairly fast. But it requires changing the position of the hand on the bolt, which takes time. I have learned over the years that what is taught in training and what is done in the field are not always the same.

As an example, we were taught to load the M1 rifle by placing the edge of the hand in front of the operating rod handle when loading a clip, then when the clip was fully seated to first lift the thumb and then remove the hand. This prevented the bolt from accidentally closing on the thumb and was the safe way to do it. But I have watched WWII vets reload M1's and they just jammed the clip in with the thumb, jerked the hand away as the bolt closed and kept firing, almost without a break. Not as safe for the shooter, maybe, but also not as safe for the enemy.

Also, the Arisaka rifles (Both Type 38 and Type 99) are cock on closing actions, as are the British Pattern 14 and U.S. Model 1917.

I have shot just about every military bolt action ever made and most commercial actions. So do I prefer COO or COC? Makes no difference; I can shoot them all just about as well (my friends would say just about as badly). To me the smoothness of the action is really more important than the cocking method.

Jim

 

[rbernie]

I've not handled one, but I thought that the Enfield 1914/1917 were cock-on-open designs, like the large-ring Mausers....

 

[Bergeron]

Mauser question

I'm wondering why Mauser elected to change from COC in his earlier small-ring rifles, to COO for the '98? The general consensus seems to be that COC is at least slightly superior, so I'm wondering what motivated Mauser to change a system that was already working?

Is there any reference out there that answers this?

 

[SMLE]

rbernie;

The Patt. 1914 and the M1917 are indeed "cock on closing" designs. There used to be lots of ads in the gun mags for "speed locks" to convert them to "COO".

Jim;
The trick I learned from my Dad on loading the M1 is to keep the hand rigid and "roll" or "pivot" the hand up. The op-rod handle will then kick you clear of the action. It's hard to describe in print, but here is a try; Hold the op-rod handle with the side of the hand and press the clip down until it locks, your hand will be slightly bent at this point, straighten your hand out and rotate your finger tips forward, by the time you have rotated your hand clear of the op-rod handle, your thumb will be a hand's breadth away from the action. This really works well when closing the action empty.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Quote:
--------------------------------------
One little-known feature of the #4 Mk1/2 (and the earler LEs as well, I believe) is that it possesses a "half-cock" setting for the cocking piece which absolutely locks the bolt closed until the cocking piece is pulled back to full cock. THIS is a safe way to immobilize the bolt on the #4, but letting the firing pin rest on the primer is assuredly NOT safe. No comparable feature exists on a Mauser.
---------------------------------------

Actually, that is EXACTLY how a mauser safety works. The difference is that you don't allow the firing pin to go forward to the "Half Cock Notch," but cam it BACK. Watch the cocking piece on a Mauser or Springfield as you apply the safety -- you see that it moves slightly backward as the safety enters the safety notch, then cams the firing pin backward, out of engagement with the sear. This is a very safe arrangement -- and unlike conventional half-cocks (and the Enfield arrangement), it doesn't require disengagement of the sear to work.