Originally Posted By: Captramrod01Well since everything has settled down might as well give my 2 cents ; ). I personally feel that rating an action better than the other because of what the military uses is flawed logic. Do you honestly think the military feels the r700 (a 60 year old action designed originally for sporter use) is more robust and more reliable than the likes of an AI or TRG? No way. Lobbying and cheap contracts are the only thing that effect the military's purchasing.
Also I'm confused why so many here consider a round action better to a flat? Outside of lazy smiths not wanting to true them what is the benefit?
The r700 safety is a flawed design and flat out dangerous. Having seen an out the box rifle bump fire, no thanks.
That's enough for now. My question for everyone is this: If someone laid out a r700, tikka t3, howa 1500 or a pre64 win action/bolt/trigger on the table what do you grab? Pretend you have no prior knowedge and have no emotional attachment to them, you simple pick the one that feels the best and has the best features. For the sake of aftermarket argument, each action comes with choice of mickys or manners stock.
I personally feel people would pick the tikka and howa. Howa because of decent 2 stage trigger, one piece bolt, m16 style extractor and *gasp, flat bottom action. Tikka because its smoother than most custom actions, 70 degree throw, IMO the best factory trigger in the game and sako style extractor. Curious as to what you gents think and why.
1 - I personally feel that rating an action better than the other because of what the military uses is flawed logic.
Why - you are entitled to your opinion, but the M-70 and M-700 have served the military very well... and no one has been able to make a shopping list of faults that need correction.
There is no other affordable action that can replace the M-700 in the numbers and follow-up service requirements that the military requires.
2 - Do you honestly think the military feels the r700 (a 60 year old action designed originally for sporter use) is more robust and more reliable than the likes of an AI or TRG? No way.
To debate the age of design is more than silly - the 1911 is over 100 years old. People keep saying it is obsolete, but they try other pistols and keep coming back to it.
The M-2 machine gun, the 20 mm Oerlikons, 40mm Bofors, and a host of other guns, all have grey hair, and they are still in production because they WORK WELL, and no one has come up with a replacement that works as well or better.
The TRG and AI could never meet military contract requirements.
3 - Lobbying and cheap contracts are the only thing that effect the military's purchasing.
Pure BullSkat!
4 - My question for everyone is this: If someone laid out a r700, tikka t3, howa 1500 or a pre64 win action/bolt/trigger on the table what do you grab? Pretend you have no prior knowedge and have no emotional attachment to them, you simple pick the one that feels the best and has the best features.
This is silly - if they don't know anything about them, then they pick on cosmetics.
Best features would be the current M-70. Best bolt, best safety, best extractor, best feel, best cosmetics... etc
5 - I personally feel people would pick the tikka and howa. Howa because of decent 2 stage trigger, one piece bolt, m16 style extractor and *gasp, flat bottom action. Tikka because its smoother than most custom actions, 70 degree throw, IMO the best factory trigger in the game and sako style extractor. Curious as to what you gents think and why. [/quote]
One piece bolts suck - Remington and Winchester go through the extra work (and cost) to make two piece bolts for good reason - if you follow some of the other forums that are dedicated to custom actions, you will read thread after thread about problems with actions that use one piece bolts.
M-16 and Sako extractors are not universally loved.
Because Tikka and Howa are your favorites, does not validate your very biased statement.
This is as silly as the 30-06 vs 270... and 9mm vs 45 Auto, debates in which advocates ignore the deficiencies of their choice and ignore the advantages of the other side, and then blindly (and deafly) march forwards into a quagmire of bullskat.
You are putting down all the features of the actions you don't like, and not admitting the disadvantages of the actions you purport are better - it is a badly skewed presentation at best.
