Just wondering why we don't see modern straight pull rifles on the market? I have a good many milsurp rifles but none of this design nor have shot any. That said, it seems like it could be superior over the more conventional actions. I would love to get a straight pull rifle in a more popular caliber but dont see many.
Straight pull rifles
- Thread starter CLC
- Start date
Blaser makes some straight pulls. Never used one but i don't think i would like it, just not my thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvCg...xt=C337a2dcUDOEgsToPDskKb_yOw8WAjGk3U_u4uOK3Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvCg...xt=C337a2dcUDOEgsToPDskKb_yOw8WAjGk3U_u4uOK3Y
It seems no demand for them is one reason. Even "Back in the Day" there weren't that many and they never caught on. The Ross had serious design problems, the M1895 Lee Navy had design problems-the floating extractor, and was chambered in an inadequate (IMHO) cartridge. The Schmidt Rubins show fine design and manufacture but don't have much of a combat record.
The Mannlicher M1895 performed very well but as the shoulder arm of what is perceived-somewhat incorrectly IMHO-of a hard luck army with the stigma of defeat it has no cachet so to speak. Both the Schmidt Rubins and Mannlichers were adopted because they were invented by "native sons" rather than being the best design, Canada adopted the Ross they could not get Lee Enfields or the permission to manufacture them and Sir Charles Ross offered to build the factory for them. James Parris Lee was a native son, more or less and the controversy over the adoption of the Krag-Jorgenson probably made the Navy Department leery of adopting a "foreign" design. And they offered no real tactical advantage over the bolt action. The Browning T-Bolt never really caught on and I don't of any other commercially available straight pull 22s. Those who technical knowledge exceeds mine will point out there are problems relating to initial extraction, etc. The Blaser is on the expensive side. On other boards some have asked, why there are no modern top break revolvers, the answer is usually design restrictions, manufacturing complications and NO demand.
The Mannlicher M1895 performed very well but as the shoulder arm of what is perceived-somewhat incorrectly IMHO-of a hard luck army with the stigma of defeat it has no cachet so to speak. Both the Schmidt Rubins and Mannlichers were adopted because they were invented by "native sons" rather than being the best design, Canada adopted the Ross they could not get Lee Enfields or the permission to manufacture them and Sir Charles Ross offered to build the factory for them. James Parris Lee was a native son, more or less and the controversy over the adoption of the Krag-Jorgenson probably made the Navy Department leery of adopting a "foreign" design. And they offered no real tactical advantage over the bolt action. The Browning T-Bolt never really caught on and I don't of any other commercially available straight pull 22s. Those who technical knowledge exceeds mine will point out there are problems relating to initial extraction, etc. The Blaser is on the expensive side. On other boards some have asked, why there are no modern top break revolvers, the answer is usually design restrictions, manufacturing complications and NO demand.
Last edited:
Mike Irwin
Staff
He's not talking about stock configuration.
He's talking about the operation of the action.
These rifles, unlike Mauser style bolt actions, in which a lifting motion is required to unlock the bolt so that the action can be cycled, only require that the bolt handled be pulled straight back and pushed forward again.
With the Mannlicher, the Ross, and the Schmidt Rubin cam tracks on the bolt body engage with studs that provide the required rotation needed to unlock the bolt.
The Lee Navy is often referred to as a straight pull bolt action, but its operation is a bit different in that it doesn't employ a rotating bolt.
He's talking about the operation of the action.
These rifles, unlike Mauser style bolt actions, in which a lifting motion is required to unlock the bolt so that the action can be cycled, only require that the bolt handled be pulled straight back and pushed forward again.
With the Mannlicher, the Ross, and the Schmidt Rubin cam tracks on the bolt body engage with studs that provide the required rotation needed to unlock the bolt.
The Lee Navy is often referred to as a straight pull bolt action, but its operation is a bit different in that it doesn't employ a rotating bolt.
TriumphGuy
New member
Sure they do. The shooter can stay hunkered down behind cover and operate the bolt without needing to lift up his head and expose it or take eyes off of the sights.
Mike Irwin
Staff
You can do the exact same thing with a bolt action like the Lee Enfield, but you can't do it with a straight pull like the older Schmidt Rubins. The bolt body is too long and you'd end up with the bolt extension and striker tail in your eye.
One of the biggest things that's wrong with the straight pulls is that they don't have the primary extraction power that a traditional lift handle bolt action has.
A sticky case can be very difficult to clear.
The Austrian Mannlicher is particularly problematic in that sense.
Along with the rifles that were adopted, there were a number of experimental designs around the same time that were shopped around worldwide, with no takers.
If you remove the op rod from an SKS, you can use it as a straight pull bolt action.
One of the biggest things that's wrong with the straight pulls is that they don't have the primary extraction power that a traditional lift handle bolt action has.
A sticky case can be very difficult to clear.
The Austrian Mannlicher is particularly problematic in that sense.
Along with the rifles that were adopted, there were a number of experimental designs around the same time that were shopped around worldwide, with no takers.
If you remove the op rod from an SKS, you can use it as a straight pull bolt action.
fatwhiteboy
New member
I have an Austrian Mannlicher and a Schmidt Rubin. Both are are fun to shoot and very accurate. The ammo I have for the Mannlicher is from 1939, complete with a swastika on the head....
Ideal Tool
Moderator
Curious about the comment on the 1895 Lee Navy having "inadequate" caliber
The U.S. navy did extensive testing to find a round which would reliably penetrate the armor of torpedo boats (this was greatest threat to battle ships of that pre-submarine era). The navy tested and rejected the .30 U.S. (.30-40). It was however too far ahead of it's time, as far as available smokeless powders were concerned.
The U.S. navy did extensive testing to find a round which would reliably penetrate the armor of torpedo boats (this was greatest threat to battle ships of that pre-submarine era). The navy tested and rejected the .30 U.S. (.30-40). It was however too far ahead of it's time, as far as available smokeless powders were concerned.
Romeo 33 Delta
New member
My straight pull experience is with:
Winchester-Lee M-1895 .236 Lee Navy
Steyr M-1893, M-1895, M-1895M 7.5 Swiss, 8 X 50R, 8 X 56R, 8 X 57
Ross M-1905 .303, .30-40 Krag
Ross M-1910 .303, .30-40 Krag, .303 Magnum, 7.62 X 54R (MTs-16)
Ross M-10 .280 Ross, 6.5 X 55, .30-06
Swiss K-31 7.5 X 55
Mauser Model 96 .30-06
Margolin MBO-1 .220 Russian
Browning T-bolt .22 LR
Iszmash 7-4 Biathlon, 7-2 Biathlon Basic, 7-? Sobol
I find them very interesting in terms of engineering which is a significant reason for my owning them, but I would take any of them in a turnbolt every time (except for the Browning and Izmash rifles).
I find them much more difficult to physically operate as my age increases and my upper body strength goes the other way. No such problems with a turnbolt. (Mike Irwin's comments on initial extraction and sticky cases is spot on).
The Steyrs are my least favorite. The actions are very stiff and the 8 X 56R is brutal, even in the long infantry rifle. (That same cartridge in a turnbolt M35 is surprisingly gentle ... just lousy ergomonics).
Winchester-Lee M-1895 .236 Lee Navy
Steyr M-1893, M-1895, M-1895M 7.5 Swiss, 8 X 50R, 8 X 56R, 8 X 57
Ross M-1905 .303, .30-40 Krag
Ross M-1910 .303, .30-40 Krag, .303 Magnum, 7.62 X 54R (MTs-16)
Ross M-10 .280 Ross, 6.5 X 55, .30-06
Swiss K-31 7.5 X 55
Mauser Model 96 .30-06
Margolin MBO-1 .220 Russian
Browning T-bolt .22 LR
Iszmash 7-4 Biathlon, 7-2 Biathlon Basic, 7-? Sobol
I find them very interesting in terms of engineering which is a significant reason for my owning them, but I would take any of them in a turnbolt every time (except for the Browning and Izmash rifles).
I find them much more difficult to physically operate as my age increases and my upper body strength goes the other way. No such problems with a turnbolt. (Mike Irwin's comments on initial extraction and sticky cases is spot on).
The Steyrs are my least favorite. The actions are very stiff and the 8 X 56R is brutal, even in the long infantry rifle. (That same cartridge in a turnbolt M35 is surprisingly gentle ... just lousy ergomonics).
Advantage: Tactical vs Practical...
The reason you don't see more straight pull bolt actions is there is no market. There is a niche.
History plays a big part. Early ammo often wasn't all that good. A lot is made of the "advantage" of the powerful camming action of the bolt action, allowing you to get that stuck case out, compared to levers, pumps, and semiautos.
And rightly so. Those few designs that used lugged bolts operated by levers, pumps, gas or recoil, the ability of being able to apply force directly on the bolt handle to rotate the bolt with the hand still gives the traditional bolt action an advantage in extraction.
Why is this important? To armies wanting the most rugged functioning arms under the worst conditions, it makes a difference, and so does the cost. And once a nation gets locked in to a certain design (one that works well enough for needs) it developes a certain inertia. Because its an investment, along with all its ammo.
Back when Europe's armies were upgrading from the single shot to the repeater, it became some kind of bolt action. And while there were some straight pull designs, the best of them wasn't any practial advantage over the turn bolts of the day. And the best straight pulls cost more and were more complex to make.
SO the turn bolt reigns supreme, because it works so well, there's no need for a straight pull, and so not much market. What can you do with a straight pull that a semi auto doesn't do better for speed or a turn bolt better for strength?
Want the best straight pull bolt gun you can easily find? Turn off the gas system of your M1A!
The reason you don't see more straight pull bolt actions is there is no market. There is a niche.
History plays a big part. Early ammo often wasn't all that good. A lot is made of the "advantage" of the powerful camming action of the bolt action, allowing you to get that stuck case out, compared to levers, pumps, and semiautos.
And rightly so. Those few designs that used lugged bolts operated by levers, pumps, gas or recoil, the ability of being able to apply force directly on the bolt handle to rotate the bolt with the hand still gives the traditional bolt action an advantage in extraction.
Why is this important? To armies wanting the most rugged functioning arms under the worst conditions, it makes a difference, and so does the cost. And once a nation gets locked in to a certain design (one that works well enough for needs) it developes a certain inertia. Because its an investment, along with all its ammo.
Back when Europe's armies were upgrading from the single shot to the repeater, it became some kind of bolt action. And while there were some straight pull designs, the best of them wasn't any practial advantage over the turn bolts of the day. And the best straight pulls cost more and were more complex to make.
SO the turn bolt reigns supreme, because it works so well, there's no need for a straight pull, and so not much market. What can you do with a straight pull that a semi auto doesn't do better for speed or a turn bolt better for strength?
Want the best straight pull bolt gun you can easily find? Turn off the gas system of your M1A!
warbirdlover
New member
The Blaser is the only one I'd consider. But not for the money they get.
Yes, strictly speaking the M1895 Lee Navy is not a straightpull, but it differs so much from the usual bolt actions that it is usually grouped with them.
The straightpull rifle is rather like the Mauser Broomhandle or the Luger. A very interesting concept and usually well executed, visually striking, but like so many first generation concepts, a technological dead end quickly surpassed by more effective designs that combined ease of operation with ease of manufacture and were reliable in use.
The Ross was a failure in large part because Ross was a rather ornery and cantankerous individual who did not take kindly to criticism and spent a lot of time tinkering with his designs-which were large cribbed from the Mannlicher-and not enough time perfecting them.
The straightpull rifle is rather like the Mauser Broomhandle or the Luger. A very interesting concept and usually well executed, visually striking, but like so many first generation concepts, a technological dead end quickly surpassed by more effective designs that combined ease of operation with ease of manufacture and were reliable in use.
The Ross was a failure in large part because Ross was a rather ornery and cantankerous individual who did not take kindly to criticism and spent a lot of time tinkering with his designs-which were large cribbed from the Mannlicher-and not enough time perfecting them.
xtriggerman
New member
There is one not mentioned here and its the Browning Acera. I picked one up for a gift to my son a couple of years ago used but mint at Gander Mountain for $475. Its a 30-06. They are essentially a BAR with no gas system. The stock does a nice job of slipping over the BAR receiver. The bolt handle does not pivot, it's just a fixed handle that has a straight forward & back action. The one we have will shoot under 2MOA for the most part. They are light and well balanced. They can be found in 300mag also but pricy used. Heres some good pictures on a old auction.
http://www.gunauction.com/search/displayitem.cfm?itemnum=8554715
http://www.gunauction.com/search/displayitem.cfm?itemnum=8554715
A straight pull rifle is just a few parts away from a semiautomatic rifle. If you are going to go through the additional expense of producing a straight pull rifle, you might as well just build a semiauto.
On the same note, if you are particularly enamored with straight pull bolters, a semiautomatic rifle is only a few parts away (although it might take a little bit more to do it safely).
On the same note, if you are particularly enamored with straight pull bolters, a semiautomatic rifle is only a few parts away (although it might take a little bit more to do it safely).
Dr. Strangelove
New member
You can buy a Yugo SKS and turn it into a straight pull by turning the gas off. (Switching to grenade launching mode by turning the gas bleed from the barrel to the off position)
Other than that, the reasons against a straight pull have been addressed above.
Other than that, the reasons against a straight pull have been addressed above.