Originally Posted by
bronko22000
Sabotloader I know Knight makes accurate muzzies and I'd likely buy one. But I just can't seem to comprehend why they can't get away from that bolt system and its the only thing holding me back. IMO that knob in the back that you have to rotate out to put the bolt into fire position seems so archaic.
Personally and for myself only I really like the bolt rifle versus the falling hammer percussion type inlines or break opens.
The knob on the back of the bolt... I think you are talking about the Secondary Safety, The Secondary Safety is/has never been a problem for me but I totally understand its operation. 99% of the time the Secondary Safety is turned all the way out 'Tight'. The only time it is 'turned in' is to release the hammer/firing pin assembly so it can be turned out of the bolt handle assembly. I very seldom, and I do mean seldom. 'turn it in' to act as a Secondary Safety. The original intention was to prevent accidental ignition in situations that the rifle might be set off accidentally. For all of my hunting I rely on the primary trigger safety.
It seems like they've done it like that since they first began making inlines. I would much prefer a bolt with a bolt face that encompasses the ignition system (either 209 primer or #11 cap) and a spring loaded hammer (similar to a Rem 700).
In the case of the #11 ignition, the bolt can not legally encompass the cap i9n the Western application. The cap must be visible in the 'ready to fire' position. In this picture you can see the bolt is closed 'almost' all the way around the #11 nipple - but again according the State Rules - 'the cap must be visible in the ready to fire' position.
With the 209 and the bolt close it is completely encompassed by the bolt shield and the breech of the rifle. Bolt closed over and around the 209 primer in the 'ready to fire' position
There is no doubt in my mind that as a general rule their muzzies are accurate.
Hope this all makes sense - I am not always the best at explaining things in writing....