What is the strongest military bolt action?

B

BoogieMan

New member
Springfield
Mauser
Enfield
Mosin Nagant
As far as I know every other design is a copy of one of the 3. It seems that the Mauser 98 was copied more often and more closely than the others. Leave out straight pull bolts and others that are not a standard bolt type action. I like all of them, but that doesnt equate to the strongest engineered which is not opinion.
 
The 1917 is pretty darn strong.

The Mauser would be a close second.

BTW, the Springfield is a pretty close copy of the Mauser.
 
Many years ago, renowned gunmaker/gunsmith P.O. Ackley tested a variety of military bolt-action rifles and he determined that the Japanese Arisaka "...was the big surprise of the tests. The indications are that this action is the strongest one...regardless of origin or make." He also noted that "...The Enfield action proved somewhat of a disappointment in these tests." Two different Enfields were tested and Mr. Ackley found that "...One action was extremely hard and blew up rather easily. When the blow up occurred, the action was nearly disintegrated and is one of the few blowups which would of perhaps proven fatal to the shooter...The other Enfield action was extremely soft. It was practically impossible to break the action but after the loads reached a high pressure level , excessive setback was indicated on each successive shot, resulting in a dangerous headspace condition."

Mr. Ackley attributed the failures of the Enfields to improper heat treatments.
 
Yup, the 1903 was too close a copy of the Mauser

Mauser won a judgement against the US and we ended up paying some serious royalties.
I hadn't heard about the heat treat issues on 1917 Enfield's before. Early 1903's certainly had this issue.
While the Arisaka design was superior, how about the quality of steel and heat treat? Japan had some serious issues with both in many of their wartime industries.
 
Last ditch Jap rifles had cast iron actions.
One shot, maybe.
Very obvious what it is when you see one.
As Ackley stated, the good ones were well nigh indestructible.
 
Mr. Ackley attributed the failures of the Enfields to improper heat treatments.
Click to expand...

Then there were 3 different M1917 (Enfield) manufactures. First and #1 was the Remington, the Remington did not have the hole in the rear sight bridge. Then there was the Winchester, the Winchester had the hole in the rear receiver bridge. Then there was Weatherby when asked about the M1917, he said he had no reservation about building a rifle with his chambers when using the M1917 receiver, there was an exception, the Eddystone.

The Eddystone M1917 was said to be anyone's guess when it came to quality, something like a WW1 version of a box of chocolate. Roy Dunlap rated the 3 M1917s, first choice, the Remington, second was the Winchester and last was the Eddystone, he claimed no one knew what to expect when choosing an Eddystone for a build. He suggested avoiding the Eddystone.

Then there was 'that guy', no one knows who he was, he was known as 'that guy', they claimed he chambered a Type 38 to 30/06, and I said that is impossible because the pilot of the 30/06 can not be shoved down the throat of the 6.5 barrel. After that they started making up the story how 'that guy' removed the pilot or ground the pilot etc. etc. and I got bored because all of those talking about the 30/06 in the 6.5 barrel were repeating information they heard from someone else.

For more reading about the Japanese and rifle development find a book by Smith and Smith. About the time they had everyone using the term Type they built a rifle that was a type ? model ?.

F. Guffey
 
I may be old, but still have somewhat of a memory. "That guy" wrote into the NRA magazine. If you have worked on guns long enough, you really see some weird stuff. The quality of steel in Arisaka receivers was never questioned. The barrels and other outside add ons were made from lower grade steels about the middle of the war. What most people call a "Last ditch rifle" never had cast receivers. I collected Arisakas for years and only ever saw one cast receiver that was not a training rifle. The true "Last ditch" is quite rare. Actually, the cast design was way ahead of it's time. The receiver was cast with an oversize receiver ring and the bolt locked into the barrel. The tests by PO Ackley are recorded. The Arisaka was the strongest design TESTED, but there were other rifle design tests coming up, which I do not believe ever came about.
 
I hear Ackley sighted in so many posts. I think I need to take the time to purchase the books. I think I may be asking many dumb questions that I could easily reference in "the book".
Thanks for the info guys.
 
My Brother has the Mosin Nagant, Mauser, and the enfield and they are all very nice and are very sturdy. Mean while I don't know about the Springfield but it is similar to the Mausers.
 
Last ditch Jap rifles were sticks with bayonets. Believe it was the U.S. Ordnance Dept. that tested the Arisaka, but it was still found to be stronger than any other bolt action. Hatcher talks about the tests, I think.
As I recall, nearly every other bolt action was a copy or derivative of the Mauser. Pattern 14/17 included. Can't say as I'd bet on that though.
 
Strong as in rugged or power?

The mosin Nagant is pretty rugged... Many take a rugged person to run it... Lol

I always loved my no4 enfield tho
 
Yes, I have heard "the Japanese rifle was the strongest rifle in the world", They chambered a round in the chamber, pulled the trigger and it handles like a doll buggy. Then I said forget the rifle, I want the cases, If the rifle did not blow the cases did not blow, deductive reasoning could suggest the cases were the strongest in the world. It was about that time someone said there could be something about the Japanese rifle no one knows about, he was a Japanese/American gun smith.

F. Guffey
 
The 1917 was longer, but some had improper tempering and I'm not sure if bigger equals stronger.

I have heard the Japanese rifle were crude but designed to be tough.

I would still be tempted to go with my gut reaction and say the grandfather of all bolt actions is the best in all ways. Yes, I am biased...

standard.jpg
 
I've read that the problem with the 1917 Eddystones was the barrels were screwed on too tight. When trying to unscrew the barrels, the receiver was ruined, usually cracking and sometimes bending. I currently have an Eddystone that has been rebarreled with a two groove 30-06 barrel and a 1943 date. I got it cheap because it had been made into a bubba sporter. With a little bit of work on the Bishop stock that's on the gun and some metal polishing and bluing, and the corrosive primer damaged bore rebored to .35 Whelen, I'll have a very useful rifle. I don't mind the cocking on closing as I believe they can be manipulated faster than a cock on opening bolt rifle.
Paul B.
 
Yup, the 1903 was too close a copy of the Mauser

Mauser won a judgement against the US and we ended up paying some serious royalties.
Click to expand...

I'll have to do some checking, to be certain, but I believe that Mauser never got a penny of the money.

I know that Krupp never got a penny from Great Britain for the license built artillery fuzes the British used in WW I. The money (they did "pay") something like a half penny per shell, was put into an escrow account. After the war, the account was confiscated as "war reparations".

I think we did essentially the same thing to Mauser.

Ackley's tests were, primarily blow up tests, and good for telling which one was strongest against a blow up. Not so much about durability over time.

I saw a 1917 Enfield turned into a .300 Magnum. Asking price was cheap. I didn't have a good feeling, passed on that one.

I have a 1909 Mauser, turned into a .458 Win. For some reason, I feel comfortable with that one (as a conversion, it can be less than comfortable to shoot!). There is strength, and then there is strength. ;)
 
ote:
Mr. Ackley attributed the failures of the Enfields to improper heat treatments.


"Then there were 3 different M1917 (Enfield) manufactures. First and #1 was the Remington, the Remington did not have the hole in the rear sight bridge. Then there was the Winchester, the Winchester had the hole in the rear receiver bridge. Then there was Weatherby when asked about the M1917, he said he had no reservation about building a rifle with his chambers when using the M1917 receiver, there was an exception, the Eddystone.

The Eddystone M1917 was said to be anyone's guess when it came to quality, something like a WW1 version of a box of chocolate. Roy Dunlap rated the 3 M1917s, first choice, the Remington, second was the Winchester and last was the Eddystone, he claimed no one knew what to expect when choosing an Eddystone for a build. He suggested avoiding the Eddystone."

Referencing my earlier post, the Enfield having the "hard" receiver was an Eddystone (#952302) and the rifle with the "soft" receiver was a Remington-Enfield (#637777).
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top