Any interest in the Mausingfield?

CMP70306

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
257
Hello Everyone,

I have been looking around the Internet for a CRF action to use for the basis of a custom long range rifle. I stumbled across the Mausingfield at the end of last year and after researching it and seeing the innovation built into the design it seems to be a very well engineered action.

On to my main point though, I see multiple forums about it on snipers hide but there is only one post mentioning it on here. This struck me as odd, since so many people here are fans of both the remington style actions and the savage style actions I was wondering why this action hasn't been mentioned at all? To me I see it as the reliability of the mauser style rifles with the array of remington 700 stocks and the DIY barrel swaps of the savage.

I have been checking on a regular basis but no one here seems to be talking about it. I was wondering if this is because no one knows about it or is it because there is no interest in it? If anyone has any information or experiences with it I would love to hear them.
 

AZShooter

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
2,609
Location
Tucson Az
I never heard of it. Looked it up. First impression is that they should replace that ugly knob! It looks like the GM headlight switch knob on my old suburban. Perhaps $1600 is the reason we don't hear much about this action. Personally I would choose a Surgeon over the Mausingfield.
 

300whisper

Well-Known Member
LRH Team Member
Joined
May 15, 2012
Messages
3,808
Location
Macon, Georgia
Mausingfield Bolt Action

Just in case anyone looking at the post doesn't know what the OP is talking about. I assume this is the company that makes it? 1600 is a lot for what I'm presuming is a new action with very little first hand experience behind its name. It looks good though, cool idea, but change the bolt knob! :D
 

FEENIX

Well-Known Member
LRH Team Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2008
Messages
14,162
Location
Great Falls, MT
Hello Everyone,

I have been looking around the Internet for a CRF action to use for the basis of a custom long range rifle. I stumbled across the Mausingfield at the end of last year and after researching it and seeing the innovation built into the design it seems to be a very well engineered action.

On to my main point though, I see multiple forums about it on snipers hide but there is only one post mentioning it on here. This struck me as odd, since so many people here are fans of both the remington style actions and the savage style actions I was wondering why this action hasn't been mentioned at all? To me I see it as the reliability of the mauser style rifles with the array of remington 700 stocks and the DIY barrel swaps of the savage.

I have been checking on a regular basis but no one here seems to be talking about it. I was wondering if this is because no one knows about it or is it because there is no interest in it? If anyone has any information or experiences with it I would love to hear them.
You are going give somebody a heart attack by having Remington and Savage in the same sentence. :):D:cool:gun)

Seriously, they are pretty slick and well thought out design. Similarly, >>> Actions | Bighorn Arms
 

Edd

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
3,814
Location
Tulsa
I like them. I'm waiting for them to build a hunter style with a BDL bottom cutout.
 

CMP70306

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
257
The one constant thing I've noticed is people commenting on the bolt knob. Some hate it while others love it but the guy who designed it put some thought into it for sure. On YouTube he has a bunch of videos that cover different parts of the action if you want to learn more about it. Also you could swap it out if you didn't like it.

When I first started looking I did find the price to be quite high compared to the Montana 1999 action that I had been looking at. However when I dug deeper into it I found that the money I saved by being able to build a rifle myself and skip the gunsmith would allow me to spend more on the other components. For example if you take a Surgeon action and add the cost for a gunsmith to fit the barrel it now costs more than the Mausingfield. At least that was the way I looked at it, others with far more experience may shoot that theory down.

My main goal of this post is to get a discussion going about what others think about this new action. So far this has shown that part of the reason it isn't being discussed is because few people know of it. Hopefully we can hear from someone who has used the action as well as opinions from some of the knowledgeable people on this site.
 

J E Custom

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2004
Messages
10,525
Location
Texas
After viewing all the video and text I could find I have an opinion about the design function
and the price.

Note: This is just an Opinion !!

It sounds like a clever way to maintain the same bolt lug and receiver lug contact. my problem would be that it will possibly allow the bolt face to move off square to the case head. this could
alter the case head to something other than 90o to the chamber.

In the past we have used oversized bolts and reamed the receiver for a better fit and squared the bolt face and lugs on the center line of the bore to prevent this.

Irregardless, when the lugs are square with the bolt centerline and the bolt face is also square with the bore center line when the rifle is fired everything will align properly. Minimum Head space also helps to hold the bolt in the proper position. (The reason some neck size only)

Again , This is just my opinion and observations and would like to hear others opinion on this design.

As to the price== There are plenty of great actions for far less that $1600.00 that are proven performers

Lets hear from some of the experts please.

J E CUSTOM
 

bruce_ventura

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
1,106
Location
Ventura CA
I’m no expert, but I think this receiver design deserves a closer look, especially if you’re interested in a reliable, multi-caliber precision rifle. The $1600 cost doesn’t bother me, mainly because it includes the recoil lug and rail, which bring the total cost closer to some other other high-end receivers (excluding accurized Rem 700 actions, of course). Being able to switch just the bolt head to accommodate different case head diameters also helps justify the cost. Having the multi-caliber features is worth the $200-300 premium, in my opinion.

90% of the Rem 700 clones out there are just that, precision copies of the Rem 700 design, with only minor, predictable modifications to the basic receiver design. By comparison, the Mausingfield action is innovative and reflects a lot of attention to the receiver function, operability and safety in the architecture of the receiver and bolt.

The designer borrowed several features from the Mauser and Springfield designs, and then came up with completely new twists on the rail interface, bolt lug, bolt assembly, and of course, the unusual bolt handle. Using a barrel tenon thread and locking nut compatible with Savage aftermarket barrels also makes switching calibers easy for the do-it-yourselfer. I think this is a receiver that someone with modest mechanical skill and tools could assemble into a first-class rifle. Only time will tell if the Mausingfield action is well received by this community.

I would not use it on my next rifle, which will have a titanium receiver, but I will consider the Mausingfield for my next project at work. I’m interested in learning more about the bolt cycle time - very important for that project. I will probably need a multi-caliber rifle and a good chassis system, and being a gear-head myself, I appreciate the uniqueness of the design.

Obviously the safe bet is to invest in a well-known Rem 700 clone receiver, and have a good gunsmith build the rifle. I’ll end up with a rifle that is immediately recognizable as a quality build. But I’m too much of a tinkerer to go that route every time.
 

J E Custom

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2004
Messages
10,525
Location
Texas
After reading the other post I revisited the workings of the action and came to a slightly different opinion than the first.

In the hands of a real gunsmith that would assemble the entire rifle correctly, it could be evaluated
properly. Is it necessary? on a poor fitting bolt action probably. My belief has all ways been to fix the problem, not the symptoms. It appears to trade one problem for another. The Savages are a good example of a good design if assembled correctly. If a person thinks that anyone can assemble a savage the odds go way down that it will perform as well as it should.

The main thing I worry about is the fact that It allows bolt misalignment. (The main reason for blue printing an action) and could cause other problems. for years I used a Mauser action for target shooting that had a very loose bolt (So loose that sometimes it would bind if not lifted while closing it) the cure was to do minimal sizing of the brass so that when it went into battery it was aligned
and shot great at 1000 yard matches.

A well fitted bolt to the action will only move 1 to .002 thousandths with out a round in it and if loaded properly it wont move at all when the trigger releases the cocking piece/firing pin as long as everything is square and headspace is minimal.

Also does the radiuses cause loading to the action other that tension and compression ? (will it cause radial stress/load on the receiver ?).

Innovation is great and I believe in it and practice it as often as possible. but I believe nothing I read/hear and only half of what I see, and then only if test are done to prove the performance.

I will remain un decided until I see evidence by the best shooters that it is a better mouse trap, not just another mouse trap.
and just like Bruce, I am no expert on something like this so time will tell.

More debate and proof is needed.

Just comments and opinions coming from a retired gunsmith.

J E CUSTOM
 

bruce_ventura

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
1,106
Location
Ventura CA
Not being an expert, I also wondered about the variable bolt alignment. I thought about it a while and came to the conclusion that it might help, but it might also hurt. I looked at the specs for some other custom actions. According to the website, Stiller actions have about .005" diameter (I assume) clearance between the bolt and receiver, for example. For some others the clearance is smaller, around .0025". In all actions, the bolt needs clearance so that it can cycle without jamming if it gets dirty. I suspect that factory rifles tend to have a larger clearance. For benchrest rifles, the clearance can be smaller because the actions are kept clean. For hunting and tactical rifles, however, it's preferable to have a larger rather than smaller clearance.

Yes, the Mausingfield lug design allows the bolt to tip and tilt - that’s the design feature that enables switching calibers so easily. As machined, the bolt clearance is .012” in diameter, or .006” radially - apparently larger than Stiller actions. The receiver finish reduces this clearance to about .005" radially.

On most actions, when the bolt closes, the sear tends to load the striker upward, pushing the rear of the bolt against the top of the receiver and increasing the clearance at the bottom of the receiver. In an action with a .005” radial clearance, this bolt inclination tips the bolt face about .0005”. This misalignment is common in most rifles to some degree. How much does it affect rifle dispersion? I would expect it to have some effect, but not a large one, given the elastic deformation of the case at ~60,000 psi. I could be wrong, though.

In most actions, the top lug also lifts off the receiver by about .0003-.0007", depending on the clearance. When the gun fires, the load on the lugs is uneven. That’s why the lugs on many actions are lapped under tension - to maintain contact on both lugs. But lapping doesn’t work very well for multi-caliber rifles. Apparently, the bolt face can also move laterally +/- .002-.005”. Consequently, the loading on the lugs and the lateral motion of the bolt face will be slightly different shot to shot. Again, how much this variation affects dispersion is unclear to me, but I suspect it is a significant factor. This is the issue that the Mausingfield lug design overcomes.

In the Mausingfield, the toroidal lugs stay in full contact when the bolt closes, so the bolt alignment and position are always the same when the gun fires. The contact and loading on the lugs is always symmetrical. Bolt alignment is the same shot to shot. The fact that the lugs allow the bolt to tip freely is actually a feature that improves reproducibility shot to shot. Whether or not this feature improves dispersion remains to be seen.

I don’t know how the stress on the Mausingfield receiver during gunfire differs from that of a receiver with flat lugs. I could argue either way - higher or lower or lower stress. In these cases, I would only trust a finite element analysis to answer that question. I think that is a minor issue, though, because the failure tests on the Mausingfield indicate that the receiver is plenty strong enough.

Frankly, I think the toroidal lug design is quite clever, but then I’m a gear-headed inventor myself, so what excites me may not be of interest to most people. I suspect that the design might benefit from having bolt to receiver clearance reduced somewhat. The more I think about it, the more I’m leaning toward the Mausingfield for my next rifle build. I really like the idea of switching calibers easily.
 
Last edited:

J E Custom

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2004
Messages
10,525
Location
Texas
Not being an expert, I also wondered about the variable bolt alignment. I thought about it a while and came to the conclusion that it might help, but it might also hurt. I looked at the specs for some other custom actions. According to the website, Stiller actions have about .005" diameter (I assume) clearance between the bolt and receiver, for example. For some others the clearance is smaller, around .0025". In all actions, the bolt needs clearance so that it can cycle without jamming if it gets dirty. I suspect that factory rifles tend to have a larger clearance. For benchrest rifles, the clearance can be smaller because the actions are kept clean. For hunting and tactical rifles, however, it's preferable to have a larger rather than smaller clearance.

Yes, the Mausingfield lug design allows the bolt to tip and tilt - that’s the design feature that enables switching calibers so easily. As machined, the bolt clearance is .012” in diameter, or .006” radially - apparently larger than Stiller actions. The receiver finish reduces this clearance to about .005" radially.

On most actions, when the bolt closes, the sear tends to load the striker upward, pushing the rear of the bolt against the top of the receiver and increasing the clearance at the bottom of the receiver. In an action with a .005” radial clearance, this bolt inclination tips the bolt face about .0005”. This misalignment is common in most rifles to some degree. How much does it affect rifle dispersion? I would expect it to have some effect, but not a large one, given the elastic deformation of the case at ~60,000 psi. I could be wrong, though.

In most actions, the top lug also lifts off the receiver by about .0003-.0007", depending on the clearance. When the gun fires, the load on the lugs is uneven. That’s why the lugs on many actions are lapped under tension - to maintain contact on both lugs. But lapping doesn’t work very well for multi-caliber rifles. Apparently, the bolt face can also move laterally +/- .002-.005”. Consequently, the loading on the lugs and the lateral motion of the bolt face will be slightly different shot to shot. Again, how much this variation affects dispersion is unclear to me, but I suspect it is a significant factor. This is the issue that the Mausingfield lug design overcomes.

In the Mausingfield, the toroidal lugs stay in full contact when the bolt closes, so the bolt alignment and position are always the same when the gun fires. The contact and loading on the lugs is always symmetrical. Bolt alignment is the same shot to shot. The fact that the lugs allow the bolt to tip freely is actually a feature that improves reproducibility shot to shot. Whether or not this feature improves dispersion remains to be seen.

I don’t know how the stress on the Mausingfield receiver during gunfire differs from that of a receiver with flat lugs. I could argue either way - higher or lower or lower stress. In these cases, I would only trust a finite element analysis to answer that question. I think that is a minor issue, though, because the failure tests on the Mausingfield indicate that the receiver is plenty strong enough.

Frankly, I think the toroidal lug design is quite clever, but then I’m a gear-headed inventor myself, so what excites me may not be of interest to most people. I suspect that the design might benefit from having bolt to receiver clearance reduced somewhat. The more I think about it, the more I’m leaning toward the Mausingfield for my next rifle build. I really like the idea of switching calibers easily.

Good explanation !!

I agree with everything you said if everything is assembled correctly it should not be a detriment
and might help. my concern is that people will think that it will make up for sloppy work/tolerances
and the one thing I am sure of is that tight/close tolerances at the time of firing, equal accuracy.

I to am an inventor and holder of many patents, so I am always interested in new things/designs
But I remain skeptical because of the past experiences with "New" innovations that did not prove to be any better than existing designs.

I am also concerned about the latest trend of do it yourself Gun smithing. Good gunsmiths are not born, they are trained and a good one never stops learning and trying to do better. It takes many years and lots of skills to be good at it. I am all for do it your self , but Gun smithing is not the place to try it on. I would not have a nurse that knows her way around an operating room perform life threatening surgery on me just to save a few dollars. I would look for a doctor with good credentials
and a history of great success (Just like I recommend we find the best Gunsmith we can and save money somewhere else.

Again; Not against the design, just skeptical that it will be an improvement.

J E CUSTOM
 

cwinner

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
246
Location
New Mexico
I had the opportunity to spin up a tube for one of the new long actions this weekend.......made a 6.5-06 for a friend of mine. I was quite impressed with the smoothness of the action and looking forward to getting his stock in for final assembly so we can see how it shoots, one thing I'm betting is it will feed like glass and eject a fired case across the room if the bolt is run hard!

I've worked on quite a few stillers, defiance, tika and Remington actions lately and all have been shooters, I don't expect anything less from this one.......

The integral lug is nice and the rail attachment with its slight dovetail design has got to be better than pins and a flat surface.....
 

Attachments

Trending threads

Top