Side pull versus conventional bolt in rifles, which is better?

[His lordship.]

I have noticed that there have not been very many side pull rifles used in the military.  I can only think of the Ross, the K-31, Swiss 1911, and the 1895 Steyr.  We all know about the many conventional bolt actions made.

Is the the conventional bolt action that much more superior?  Is the side pull a weak design?

Thanks.

[schnarrgj]

That's a good question.  Straight pulls have the advantage of speed and ease of working the bolt. To produce a good straight pull rifle, the cost unit is higher than the turn bolt and it is more complicated to maintain. The straight pull is generally considered weaker than the turn bolt weapons. With the conventional turn bolt, the camming action helps to both chamber and eject with more mechanical advantage. In that most military ammunition is made by the lowest bidder, sometimes you need to coax a difficult round into or out of the chamber.  My Swiss K31s are wonderful, accurate and easy to get the next round in the chamber when properly sized. If it was to be soaked in mud for a while, I would want a turn bolt for reliability.

They are both good, the turn bolt has proven itself in innumerable conflicts around the world. It has been the standard for strength, reliability, accuracy and ease of maintenance by the common soldier for over a century. The straight pull is in my opinion, strong, and accurate--but for a field rifle it is to hard to maintain by the average conscript (not the Swiss) and too expensive to make on a mass scale.

[Mikey]

I can agree with schnarragj that the tolerances on the stright pull bolts are such that they might not make for the most reliable battle rifle under adverse field conditions and that they are costly to manufacture, but the strength is certainly there. 

The 7.5mm Swiss cartridge ran in the same pressure league as all the other military cartridges of the time and I believe Mauser even made their own straight pull bolt sporter in current chamberings.

Staight pull bolts are interesting but complicated.  I don't ever recall getting the bolt on my older K-31 apart.  Mikey.

[Oldtimer]

To add to the excellent points already made, there are a couple of other considerations.  Both the early Ross design and the early M-95's  had the problem of the bolt being able to be reassembled so that the bolt would not lock, and then would blow back into the shooter's face when fired.  I think that this may have soured armies on developing more straight pull actions.  The close tolerances of the Ross led to Canadian troops having to stand on their bolt handles in the muddy French trenches of WWI, because the dirt would make the actions jam.  The Canadians then would beg, borrow, or steal SMLE'S from  British troops, since they used the same ammo.  While it seems logical to think that the straight pulls were quicker, in the field, SMLE's proved to be the fastest action.  The British troops were trained in mass fire, and German troops often thought the British had machine guns, when what they had was good training and SMLE's.  While the striaght pull design makes an interesting footnote in military history, it proved to be a dead end.

[WILDCATT]

IF not in combat I would say both are good.ww1 was a very bad muddy situation.and dont for get the Lee navy the gun worked well but the cart.was ahead of its time.used in the boxer rebellion
at the time of the development every country wanted its own design.the mauser,the mannlicher,and the straight pull.

[1911crazy]

The swiss k31 still has a rotating bolt, it can be stiff  at times too. I still like the feel of the action on the mauser bolt action.
The smoothest and fastest bolt to operate still has to be the britt 303.
Didn't the newer straight pull bolts on the mausers die off?  I think sarco was offering them cheap a while back.

[Brithunter]

Actually the Ross M10 or 1910 is stronger than the Mauser 98. The proof pressure for the .280 Ross was 28 Tons the proof pressure for .270 Winchester is 19 Tons. The pressure was so great with the 280 Ross that Eley's produced the .280 Nitro cartridge with lower pressure for those who wanted a .280 on the Mauser action. The Mauser's could not take extended use with the full .280 Ross.

As for the late model M96 Slide Bolt from Mauser which used a double Stoner bolt arrangement. The M96 uses 16 bolt lugs that lock directly into the barrel, the receiver only lines things up and carries the scope mounts it does not take pressure, so in theory it could be a switch barrel rifle. The other modern commercial straight pull not mentioned of course is the Blaser 93 which uses a collet type lock up.

As for strength of the other straight pull actions the Steyr Mannlicher M95 has the same lock up and breeching as a normal Mauser type turn bolt, it's the way in which it's operated that is different as it still uses twin opposed lugs at the from of the bolt to contain the breech pressure as does the late model Schmidt Rubins like the K31 which as I understand also has twin front bolt lugs unlike the earlier models like the M1889 and M1911 that had rear or mid action lock ups.

   Despite being an fan of the Le Enfield action the Mannlicher Mdl 1892/3 and later M1903, M1903, M1908, M1910 Stery's have to be the smoothest of them all. Side by side comparison of the Mdl 1892 and Mdl 1903 and the two Le's I have show the Mannlicheers to be just thta bit smoother and one of my LE's is a BSA Commercially produced sporting rifle so it has not been through the rigours of the battle fields to rough it up. So as the Mannlicher's are also commercially produced sporting rifles it's a valid comparison. With proper training I expect that the Le Enfield would be faster to operate than the Mannlichers.