What do you think is the best rifle action??

[R.W.Dale]

The CZ 550 and 527 would be as far as I would look for an action for that custom sporter build

now for a bench target gun the Savage  LRPV action would be the ONLY factory action I would be looking at. I've built a couple rifles on these and the results are always outstanding

[Mr. Joe]

Dont get me wrong there are actions i like about as much, the CZ 550, the winchester 70 classic is pretty darn close.  Of course you can still get mausers, but the serbian ones leave  somthing to be desired.

[Brithunter]

Thinking about this it became a toss up between three for me:-

1) Mannlicher Schoenauer

2) BSA Majestic/Monarch

3) M98

[Mr. Joe]

you have very good taste!

[kyelkhunter3006]

I just can't deal with Ruger's pot metal receiver, bolt, and misc. parts.

What about the pot metal in the Remingtons?  The bottom unit, mag follower, some trigger parts, extractor and ejector are definitely NOT steel....

[Swampman]

"Receiver machined from solid-steel bar stock resulting in uniformity and strength.  Cylindrical receiver design provides a solid bedding area in the stock for consistent shot placement.  Recessed bolt face locks up inside the counter-bored breech of the barrel which is surrounded by the receiver, forming "three-rings-of-steel" enclosing the cartridge case head for unparalleled strength.  Integral extractor is set in a groove inside the rim of the bolt face, uniformly supporting the cartridge head."

The parts that are in between your face and 50,000+ psi are machined from a solid block of steel, not cast "steel."

[kyelkhunter3006]

Even solid bar stock steel starts off as a casting.  It's cast into a bar.  At the foundry.  Where they pour molten iron that's mixed with other elements to make steel into molds.  Ruger actions are investment castings, JUST LIKE YOUR FAVORITE NEF HANDI RIFLE frames are.  So if a Ruger bolt action is junk, so is a Handi Rifle frame.   

[Freezer]

   Brithunter, the Schoenaur.... The rifle of my dreams... 6.5 Schoenhaur... manlicher montcarlor stock... excuse me I need t hide for awhile   I couldn't hunt with it, first slide I'd take with it would brake my heart

[Mr. Joe]

The steel used in a ruger action is harder than that of a remington...ask your gunsmith...it is fact.  Sorry to burst any bubbles.  Not that it matters, they both have ample strength...any argument here is an act of futility.

[Coyote Hunter]

"Receiver machined from solid-steel bar stock resulting in uniformity and strength.  Cylindrical receiver design provides a solid bedding area in the stock for consistent shot placement.  Recessed bolt face locks up inside the counter-bored breech of the barrel which is surrounded by the receiver, forming "three-rings-of-steel" enclosing the cartridge case head for unparalleled strength.  Integral extractor is set in a groove inside the rim of the bolt face, uniformly supporting the cartridge head."

The parts that are in between your face and 50,000+ psi are machined from a solid block of steel, not cast "steel."

Starting with a solid piece of bar stock does result in a stronger receiver - if comparing against some multi-piece receivers or receivers made with stamed metal or aluminum castings.  Sorry, but the Ruger is one piece as well, and it is good steel, not some kind of pot metal.

And sorry, the "three rings of steel" is hardly a Remington exclusive.  Remington wasn't even the first.

Never heard of a rim blowing out, so I don't consider the "integral extractor" a plus.  The fact they break on occasion gives them a negaive rating in my book.  As does the multi-piece bolt.

Not to say they are not good rifles, but they are not perfect, either.

[Swampman]

In a receiver harder isn't what you want.

[R.W.Dale]

In a receiver harder isn't what you want.

True because lug setback and stripped threads is a preferable trait found in only the finest rifles

give up dude those other guys have pwned you in this argument

[Brithunter]

   Brithunter, the Schoenaur.... The rifle of my dreams... 6.5 Schoenhaur... manlicher montcarlor stock... excuse me I need t hide for awhile   I couldn't hunt with it, first slide I'd take with it would brake my heart

Ahhh it's been a farily long road to get there and I am not at the end yet! I brought the rifle in rather sad condition with a relined barrel, the liner it appears was not good adn after tryign to move it on we then decided to try and salvage it which has pooved to more costly than I first thought even with a couple of lucky breaks  . I took the rifle to Ron Wharton of Rigby's to ask his opinion on what we could re-barrel and convert the rifel to shoot so it could be used. After soem weeks of having it and thinking about and Ron was obviously asking about in the trade he phoned me and asked if I would intersted in a brand new still in factory wrap new 6.5x54MS barrel  you can guess the answer  Well ron got it but was too busy with his proper custom work to do the job so it went to Lew Potter who stripped the old barrel off fitted the new one transferred the sights and got it proofed and blacked. I now need a new stock to replace the customised one fitted to it. It's usable but is obviously for a small stature person and is very short in the stock.

   So my cheap Schoenauer is no longer a cheap rifle in cost terms but how many 6.5mm Schoenauers do you hear of with brand new Steyr made barrels?  I think it now deserves some nice Walnut to wear don't you agree? Now I just need to save up for the stock and the services of a good stocker  .

[Swampman]

In a receiver harder isn't what you want.

True because lug setback and stripped threads is a preferable trait found in only the finest rifles

give up dude those other guys have pwned you in this argument

A hard receiver (or barrel) just becomes an hand grenade.  Hard isn't what you want in a receiver.  Do a little research.

[Freezer]

    Agree, I had a chance at one a while back.  It was stored poorly and had some surface rust on the outside.  The bore was great and the action slick as could be.  $650.        The kids needed school cloths
    By the way got the Mk X finished.  The trigger came in yesterday.  No take up creep or over travel with a #3 pull.  I had to modify the receiver a little and shave the stock for the trigger to fit well.  That rifle is so slick and smooth I almost hate to sell it.  I just don't need a 7mag.

[panhandle]

Have to agree with you on the Savage stocks, they feel like a 2x4 in your hands.  Just as easy to make a good feeling stock as it is to make a big board.

[Coyote Hunter]

In a receiver harder isn't what you want.

What you want is a hardened surface with a softer core.  This comes from heat treating the metal after machining.  The results depend on a lot of factors including the alloy used.

Nevertheless, the Rugers are not known as weak actions - quite the contrary.  The casting allows them to have more uniform strength in all directions while the Remington, due to the way bar stock is made, has more strength in the axial than the radial driection.

[Atlas]

I have always been partial to 3 lug bolt actions - such as browning abolts, sakos, weatherby Mark V, and T/C icons (in addition to Kenny Jarret's Tri Lug bolt action - considered to be the most accurate bolt action there is).  To me, the 3 lug bolt actions (weatherby actually 9 lugs in 3 columns of 3 lugs) are a more stable platform, have a shorter bolt throw and smoother action.  In addition, all the above mentioned rifles are considered highly accurate out of the box and have wonderful triggers.

[R.W.Dale]

A hard receiver (or barrel) just becomes an hand grenade.  Hard isn't what you want in a receiver.  Do a little research.

an overly hard one would, however you do understand that there are many steels out there ranging from super soft stuff we use in bridges and construction to super hard stuff used as armor plate and for excavation equipment. The soft stuff is unsuitable for anything other than large structural members.  Your argument that rugers are crap because they are cast is just flat out uneducated drivel.

You know what else is investment cast? Jet turbine blades....that's right hundreds of thousands of lives are in grave danger each day because of the use of pot metal turbine compressor blades

[Swampman]

I've innspected hundreds of thousands of turbine blades.  They aren't steel.  Cast steel just has to be a lot beefer to contain the same amount of pressure as parts machined from solid steel.  That's why Rugers are"overbuilt" a.k.a heavy for their intended purpose.  It just takes more cast steel to contain the pressure.

[kyelkhunter3006]

I'm not sure what kind of turbine blades you've inspected that aren't steel??  Back in the late 80's/early 90's, we ran our own machining and finishing facility.  Our major contracts were with suppliers for the military aircraft programs.  We did all of the final machining and polishing on the fan blades for various jet engine turbines, and I can tell you for a fact that every one of the them came to us straight out of the investment casting molds.  And they were steel. I will say that also did finish work on some blades that were titanium experimental parts, but since we closed the company, I don't know if they ever went into production.  You can bet that 99% of the blades in engines in use today are steel, since most of the aircraft in use are going on 20 years or longer.

Here's a quote from from a website on investment casting of steel:

Applications
Investment casting is used in the aerospace and power generation industries to produce single-crystal turbine blades, which have more creep resistance than equiaxed castings. It is also widely used by firearms manufacturers to fabricate firearm receivers, triggers, hammers, and other precision parts at low cost. Other industries that use standard investment-cast parts include military, medical, commercial and automotive.

[Swampman]

The bottom line is that Ruger developed the process to reduce production cost.  It had nothing to do with improving quality.  A Ruger will go off when you pull the trigger.  It will stay in on piece normally.  Personally I wouldn't own a Ruger bolt action rifle if it were free.  I do like the Ruger #3 & the 10-22.

[R.W.Dale]

Personally I wouldn't own a Ruger bolt action rifle if it were free.

But you'll own those POS cast handi rifles that are like lightning in that they never strike in the same place twice

pwned

The bottom line is that Ruger developed the process to reduce production cost.

so making a better product at less cost is bad??? I would take  ruger m77 over a rem700 any day of the  week and twice on sundays

[Brithunter]

The bottom line is that Ruger developed the process to reduce production cost.  It had nothing to do with improving quality.  A Ruger will go off when you pull the trigger.  It will stay in on piece normally.  Personally I wouldn't own a Ruger bolt action rifle if it were free.  I do like the Ruger #3 & the 10-22.

Oh an Remington didn't adopt tube steel as it's cheaper and easier to chunk of a bit of tube cuts some slots in it and voila a 700 action body, yep cheap and cheerful, I have said all along that swampman is lacking in the head depatment and he just keeps o proving it again ................................... and again  

[Swampman]

I think I'll take my own oft given advise.

Proverbs

26:4  Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

Good day gentlemen.

[kyelkhunter3006]

The bottom line is that Ruger developed the process to reduce production cost.  It had nothing to do with improving quality.  A Ruger will go off when you pull the trigger.  It will stay in on piece normally.  Personally I wouldn't own a Ruger bolt action rifle if it were free.  I do like the Ruger #3 & the 10-22.

It's obvious that you don't really know anything about investment casting.  It was actually developed about 5000 years ago.  Not by Ruger.  Even modern equipment investment casting wasn't developed by Ruger.  Ruger was just the first to use the manufacturing method in firearms manufacturing.  It's also used by NEF, T/C, and in the Montana 1999 actions, to name a few.

[Coyote Hunter]

I've innspected hundreds of thousands of turbine blades.  They aren't steel.  Cast steel just has to be a lot beefer to contain the same amount of pressure as parts machined from solid steel.  That's why Rugers are"overbuilt" a.k.a heavy for their intended purpose.  It just takes more cast steel to contain the pressure.

Cast steel IS "solid steel".  And its crystaline structure is more uniform than bar or tubular steel.  The final strength depends on the alloy used and the heat treatment more than whether the steel is investment cast or starts out as bar stock.

"Heavy for their intended purpose"?  I guess that's why the Remington M700 CDL at 7-1/2 pounds is so much lighter than a Ruger M77 MKII or Hawkeye at 7-1/2 pounds...

I'm guessing you're not a rocket scientist...

[kyelkhunter3006]

Whew man.   I should've known we'd all end up here in this discussion again.     Oh well.  LOL..

[Mr. Joe]

Lol...this is turning into a gong show.  You would think that at some point a person would realize that maybe its not everyone else thats wrong...but perhaps them.  For the record...Ruger actions are not weak, and according to several gunsmiths that have done work for me in the past, they are stronger than the Mauser K98 action, and most of your other commercial numbers.  As far as cost cutting goes, no action was designed to cost less to make than that of a Remington...except possably a savage.  But guess what?  They are work well, and at the end of the day Remington makes one of my top picks for a bolt gun.  But to say they are stronger than a Ruger and that Ruger actions are weak...that is crazy talk and TOTALY INCORECT

[Brithunter]

Ahhhh Now accordign to what i found on the web site the Rem 700 was introduced in 62 with it's much publised "three Rings of Stee," however BSA used this three rings of steel design in it's new Hunter model in 1953 and after that in the models:-

Majestic
Monarch
CF2

  So it seems that Remington was copying anothers idea  BSA also experimented and used cast componants in production in the early 1960's includign a new structural plastic for the sights on the Air Rifles. Later they made the triggers from this same material again on the Air Rifle production.

   Using casting in firearms production goes way back into the 19th century at least as most SxS shotgun action bodies are cast so one would assume that the double rifls action bodies were aslo made the same way. Hammers for these were cast using the lost wax process in some cases which is the process that Ruger uses.