Cock on close- why not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
i have and shoot a 1917 winchester full military and a rem. model 30 express and i like the rem 30 express alot better. better trigger and smoother bolt . eastbank.
 
Cock on close really isn't faster, and it doesn't really "use the muscles better". The length of pull would have to be substantially longer to get decent leverage, and it's also much harder on the elbow joint, resulting in faster fatigue when shooting a lot. It also encourages pushing the rifle away from the shoulder, resulting in longer setup time for the next shot, and introduces forward stress on the rifle / stock relationship instead of only the typical rearward stress from firing. This can, over time, contribute to accuracy issues by loosening things up. The action tends to "set" backwards in its mounts due to the recoil, and the frequent forward pressure can prevent it from taking a set.

I own a 98-type Mauser, a Mosin Nagant, and an Arisaka 99 (cock on close). The cock-on-open actions are definitely easier and faster to work.
 
Last edited:
The important thing is, to hit what your are shooting at with the first shot. Then however the rifle is cocked is immaterial..........chris3
 
Just like something else we all have, here's my opinion, FWIW:

I bought into the "cock on close" view because intellectually it made sense.

I own a beautiful little sporterized Swede Mauser that is a favorite of mine and I was using it on a deer hunt a few years back. Well... a deer came along at a trot and I shot him but he didn't drop. Instead, he took off, but headed down an open area.

I quickly racked another round and the second shot dropped him but that cock-on-close really threw me off. The muzzle came waaayyy off target and I sort of bounced around getting back on. I had shot that rifle a lot, but that was the first time I tried a fast follow up shot in the field.

Maybe with the adrenaline and excitement, I was just really cranking the bolt, I don't know. I do know I immediately swung to the "don't like cock-on-close" view and converted that fine little gun to cock-on-open when I got home.
 
Converting a coc mauser to cock on open will weaken the cocking piece. I currently do not own any COC guns but as said I have shot an SMLE quite regularly.
 
Just like something else we all have, here's my opinion, FWIW:

I bought into the "cock on close" view because intellectually it made sense.

I own a beautiful little sporterized Swede Mauser that is a favorite of mine and I was using it on a deer hunt a few years back. Well... a deer came along at a trot and I shot him but he didn't drop. Instead, he took off, but headed down an open area.

I quickly racked another round and the second shot dropped him but that cock-on-close really threw me off. The muzzle came waaayyy off target and I sort of bounced around getting back on. I had shot that rifle a lot, but that was the first time I tried a fast follow up shot in the field.

Maybe with the adrenaline and excitement, I was just really cranking the bolt, I don't know. I do know I immediately swung to the "don't like cock-on-close" view and converted that fine little gun to cock-on-open when I got home.
That's what I meant when I said slamming the bolt foward will push the rifle away from your shoulder. Requiring all that pressure to close the bolt is sure to mess up your aim. The extra effort and strain on your bolt arm sure doesn't help steady it afterwards, either. The cock-on-open designs require less force in any given direction than the force required to close the bolt on a cock-on-close design.
 
Seems to me that personal preference is the control in this issue. And, if you use both types, remembering the difference can occasionally create a problem if haste in cycling the bolt is involved.

Anyhow, it was demonstrated just before WW II that the cock-on-close of the Enfield allowed the British team to be competitive with the US team's Garands in rapid-fire on targets. I don't recall the specific match, but there was quite a bit of startlement at the British competitiveness "at speed".

The lesser strength required to open the bolt of the Enfield was said to be the reason; it allowed a faster cycling.
 
The camming action for primary extraction on Mauser type rifles comes from the angle cut in the receiver where the root of the bolt handle strikes. Cock on open or close has nothing to do with primary extraction.
 
with any weapon the manual of arms differs and is subject to training a well trained german soldier would problely argue that his 98k was was easyer to use than his british counterparts enfield and vice verca but given equal amount of training in the manual of arms for both rifles one could achive the same level proficentcey.
 
with any weapon the manual of arms differs and is subject to training a well trained german soldier would problely argue that his 98k was was easyer to use than his british counterparts enfield and vice verca but given equal amount of training in the manual of arms for both rifles one could achive the same level proficentcey.
The difference being that the British placed a high premium on rapid fire from rifles -- up until WWI, their rifles were equipped with crude "volley sights" designed to deliver mass fire out to 2,800 yards -- sort of a substitute for machine gun fire. And they put a lot of effort into training, developing some interesting techniques for rapid fire -- such as resting the rifle on a sandbag and shooting from the left shoulder, keeping the bolt handle grasped in the right hand.

The Germans were more oriented toward small group tactics and in WWI developed the rifle-and-machine gun group (called a "fire team" in the US Army and Marines). As a result, they placed less emphasis on rapid fire from rifles.
 
I've shot both and I don't like COC, doesn't feel as smooth as a COO. Considering how COO is the predominate action nowadays I would have to venture a guess that its better than COC.
 
Vern: i agree with that with the change in equipment brought about changes in tatics i was trying to express that with training one could expect to see a british soldier achive the same results with a Mouser as with an enfield and the same in reverse
 
I've always wondered why no one has made a bolt action rifle that cocks as you pull the bolt back. It seems like that would be the time to do it. The cocking effort would be pulling the gun into your shoulder rather than pushing it away.
 
It's called the Swiss K-31, a straight-pull bolt action. The problem is that there's some strength limits on that type of action, unlike the Mauser design.
 
I agree with fireman 971. Seems like it is easier to work the action on a cock on open. But, that is what I grew up with, standard american hunting rifles, so maybe it is just personal preference.
 
I had a SMLE rifle for awhile that I got rid of because I don't keep anything over 3 moa. That being said the SMLE action is the fastest cycling bolt rifle I have seen although I think the straight pull rifles are right there in terms of speed too. You can flip it (SMLE) open and back with the index finger and slam it back home with your thumb so fast folks can hardly see it move. Not kidding.
 
Last edited:
I was talking with my uncle a few years ago, who is a hunter and target shooter and collector of long experience. One of his buddies is a gun writer, and often my uncle has access to his demo guns. Uncle was talking about shooting one of the new T/C bolt actions, and he mentioned that he liked the rifle and found it very accurate, but that he would not recommend it because with the 60 degree bolt lift, and for whatever other reasons of it being a stiff new gun, he was unable to work the bolt with the gun shouldered. This from a guy who for many years shot high power matches with bolt guns, and who definitely knows bolt action technique.

It seems to me that a shorter bolt lift would be a valid design goal in a bolt action, but if the gun cocks on the bolt lift stroke, there is clearly a limit, and it's probably 60 degrees. And, having shot Swede Mausers, I'm not all that crazy about cocking on the forward stroke. It isn't anything like a problem, especially if you are stroking the bolt briskly so that the inertia of the gun is helping, but again there's probably a better way.

Cocking on the retract stroke would seem to me to be ideal. The lift stroke would only do primary extraction and unlocking the lugs. You could design a multi lug bolt with a 45 or even 30 degree bolt lift, which would keep the bolt handle well away from the scope and cut down on hand motion. As the bolt comes back, the cocking resistance would be countered by the shoulder. The forward stroke is just stripping the cartridge from the magazine, and then another short locking rotation.

It also seems that this approach would lend itself to a pretty straightforward fire control group. Use a hammer. There's no law that says that bolt actions need to be striker fired. Centerfire autoloaders get the job done just fine with a hammer.

Anyway, there you have Jubjub's rifle of the future, a bolt action AR. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top