Bolt Action VS. Break Action
 

I did not want to Hogg(pun intended) up another's post with this. So I wil try to explain my point in a separate thread.

In another thread I postd that a bolt action is inherently a more accurate action than a break action firearm.

This is not to say a break action is not strong enough. Or that a break action is not accurate enough to accomplish hunting accuracy. It is just simply a fact that a bolt action is inherently more accurate. I am not sure how anyone could think otherwise. It really is common knowledge in the shooting world.

I am not trying to say Knight rifles are better because they have a bolt. Or that Encore's or CVA's are inferior because of their design. All the rifles talked about here are definitely strong enough, and accurate enough for their intended purpose. I am only saying a bolt action will be a more accurate design.

Strength is one reason why. A one piece stock is definitely stronger than a two piece stock. No doubt about that. This is not to say that a two piece stock is not strong enough to do the job-because it is. But a two piece stock is definitely not as strong as a one piece stock.

Also the biggest problem the break action's have with accuracy is the fact that it has a two piece stock. Specifically the biggest problem is the forearm. Since the forearm is not solidly attached to the action it can cause alot of problems down the road. I could go on with the forearm problem, but I think you guys already know what those problems are. Tom.

On the other hand, a drop breech like the Omega has the best of both worlds - a fully bedded one piece barrel & breech without the added length of a bolt housing. :s1:

HEAD0001

I am locked... I do prefer the bolt action to the break action for many reasons.. not just the stock or even the hinge...

But as much as I hate to give Muley a lot of credit - i do think he and others have a very valid point - that for hunting accuracy - why would you need any thing else?

Even though my Omega is not a break action it is a very accurate rifle and a very good rifle.

My Triumph shoots lights out for hunting, it is lighter, and is a great gun.

But still, I just can not get a good feeling hunting with either of these rifles, as I do hunting with a bolt. I can lean it on a branch, press it up against a tree, lay it over my pack, or even on a solid surface such as a rock and not worryabout putting to much pressure on the forearm to cause a shift in POI, especially at longer ranges.

And my other big handi-cap is I really do not like the need to pull a hammer back to shoot. This is just a personal thing that I have never conquered, from days as a yougster using a 30-30 Winchester - through the Omega and the Triumph. The Knight Vision and or the Ruger #1 - those I could get use to... except the problems the forearms create for #1 users... and eventually the hinge joints.

Just my thoughts not meant to condem anyone elses thoughts... So thank gosh manufacturers give us options.

the omega stock " synthetic" is one one piece stock thats crap. Its all going to depend on many things whether the rifle is accurate or not.

Those cheap flexy stocks they put on the savage ML is one of the biggest complaints you hear about. Omegas again with their POI change when removing them from the stock isnt going to be accurate as its shifting around.

I always hear this same story but the same ending is, prove that a break action wears out to the point where accuracy is no more. Prove to me that a bolt action sweeps the accuracy of a break action.

It cant be done, especially the " break actions wear out" part.

and why is the Omega or The CVA model that they copied from the Omega disappearing... I know that TC still offers a cut down version but it certainly is not the flag ship any longer

The Omega was a great gun - espescially if they could afford to put an adjustable trigger in it.

:s2: Different strokes for different folks. There's something about c0cking a hammer to make a shot that just feels right to me.

Stock design is also very important. For example. I know alot of guys who have break action rifles. Including myself. And the biggest problem these rifles have(IMO) is maintaing their zero through time and different weather conditions. And alot of these problems are tied directly to the forearm of the break action rifles. And the fact that these forearms are attached directly to the barrel of the rifle. This is just not a system that is conducive to short and definitly not conducive to long term accuracy and repeatability.

I have seen it too many times.

I know I can greatly increase the accuracy of my break action rifles by how I place the rifle(forearm) on the front rest at the range. I normally bed my forearms solid. This adds alot of strength and consistency. More strength than trying to float them. Tom.

I'm never sure how to take this? I've read it many times in the past.


Here's something to think about. Would the forearm stock of a break action gun affect the accuracy of the barrel the same way a one piece stock would on a bolt gun?

Well that ought to tell you something, you ornery old goat. :s2:

Yeah! Nobody likes me.





Perfect! My plan is working. :barmy:

See this would be a good looking Break action in my book. Still have to deal with some little problems - but I could learn to like this one,,,

To much talk goes into shooting little groups from rifles by keyboard commandos

Accuracy is nothing more than being consistent, with the weapon, the load and the guy pulling the trigger.

Most people cant see the differance and if they can they need to contact top shot!!!

Practical accuracy is way more than enough for most folks!!!

Well I kinda like you Muley. But I like old smelly cheese and stinky Brussel sprouts also. :kiss:


Sabotloader, that's not a break open. It's a falling block.

Good enough.

But that'd be infringement :poke:

Sabotloader, if you want a conversion from a falling block action, John Moses Browning's 1885 design is the classiest one around. Of course, you would have to c0ck that hammer you dislike so much. :s2:

Do you want a cookie for pointing out the obvious??

I am not sure who you are calling a keyboard commando. Maybe we should only talk about topics of your choice. So please lay out the future topics so we can be sure to stay on topic. SHHEEESSSSHHHHH. Tom.

You should lay of the sauce

All I am saying is it doesnt matter what you shoot most will never get the full accuracy out of it

Plus..........not many can put the bullet exactly where they want it in a hunting situation. Even if the gun is the most accurate gun you can buy.

not in the field they wont. I even need shooting stix now due to lack of practice of off hand shooting. Im sure i could still hit a deer or elk off hand but when you can use a rest of any kind, do it! LOL.

I like my break actions.

Most all forums
look around all guns shoot 1/2 moa or better :)

Nice looking gun but, nope do not want a hammer - I could use the Omega or the Triumph for that...

Dang it muley!!! - that is twice in the same day that you have pointed the way to the truth and made since... and because of what you say that is exactly why I want to shoot the bullet with the best terminal ballistics that I can find... offer me a bit of a margin of error...

Ya but CVA could do it...:kt:

Me too. In my case. It's the Thor.

I hate to keep talking about them, but it's a good accurate bullet with excellent terminal performance.

If I could shoot sabots, the options would be many.

You do need to be careful bout that... u could earn the shill label!

Dang Nation!!!:arms:

me to exactly... This really gitting scarey:devil:


During rifle season I can shoot better options (for me) and during ML season I am stuck with a full bore lead conical - Bull Shop to be exact.

GM already gave me the Thor shill label.

I thought a shill got paid? Where's my money!

So should we stop trying??? I like to get the bullet i choose to use shooting the most accurate as i can. I believe everyone should as well. If it doesnt shoot well on the bench, it wont be any better in the field.

I wish I could be a shill !!!!

:lmao::lmao: But you only shot like 50 Thors so far!

What is well on the bench 4 to 6 inch groups?

1" to 1.5" groups at 100 yards.

Great,
A 100 yard rifle that shoots 1 MOA groups is not one bit deadlier than one that shoots 4 MOA groups at 100

You are wrong. 4" groups off a bench will easily be double in the field. I wouldnt keep any gun that shot 2" groups let alone 4".

This is your choice as far as what you find acceptable

But to say I am wrong that a 4 inch moa gun want kill as well as a 1.0 to 1.5 inch gun at a 100 yards shows your Ignorance

A 4" group at 100 yds is fine for a sidelock with open sights offhand.

It really sucks for a scoped inline. That 4" group will really grow at longer distances.

I understand Muley but we are talking killing now not group size

an animal wont know the difference as long as the shot goes where you intend it to go.

If we are talking a scoped ML in the field you are going to be outside the kill zone unless you are a spectacular off hand shooter. If thats the case, thats far from normal and its really not acceptible in my opinion only. The animal deserves a good clean fast killing shot.

Exactly Jon