Quote:

---

Why used Rigby , H&H , Jeffery (immediately following the year 1912 , when Rigbys lost their privilege as Mausers sole UK representatve) magnum length actions for the long cartridges.

You will notice that the Jeffery (or WR) cartridges do not approach the OAL of the .350 or .416 Rigby for which the magnum action was originally designed. The fact that they later offered their rifles utilizing a mag. action could very well have been due to market forces rather than an admission of manufacturing an inferior weapon prior to that. The proof is in the pudding - I would still like to see a failed WR action.



What does proofing tell us ?

When a carpenter modifies an armchair by sawing the backrest to half of the original thickness you may doubt that it is stable.
When you ask im for stability he may answer : I proofed it for stability with hundreds of slim ladies.

Proofing is to show that the rifle has withstood a HIGHER power cartridge than that which is meant to be the service charge - not "slim ladies" - terrible analogy. Rifles aren't proofed with less powerful loads than standard.

---

Also, to expect that the cutaway on the front ring predisposes the action to fail, you are also expecting the other front lug to fail as well as the rear lug on the bolt.
That would be an interesting test - remove the top lug on a Mauser bolt and then test fire it (under controlled conditions of course) to see when or if it fails. I have a standard bolt which I will donate for the cause.

Edited by Huvius (24/03/10 12:21 PM)

Post Extras