What's really wrong with

[PWC]

cock on close? I know about the Enfield with the rear locking lugs and stretched cases, but it appears that cock on open requires more pressure to raise the bolt handle, than a straight push, from the open bolt, that stretches the spring and cocks the arm. My 03-A3 requires more "muscle" to open the bolt than the Enfield I have shot. It seems to me from the prone and cross-legged position the cock on close would be more beneficial.

[Art]

cock on close? I know about the Enfield with the rear locking lugs and stretched cases, but it appears that cock on open requires more pressure to raise the bolt handle, than a straight push, from the open bolt, that stretches the spring and cocks the arm. My 03-A3 requires more "muscle" to open the bolt than the Enfield I have shot. It seems to me from the prone and cross-legged position the cock on close would be more beneficial.

Nothing is wrong with cock on close and it does have some advantages in a combat rifle. The Lee Enfields weren't the only cock on closing actions early Mausers were cock on closing as well. In the real world its six of one and half a dozen of the other. Our military preferred cock on opening and that was one of the factors, though not the only one, that kept the M1903 as the service rifle after WWI instead of the M1917.

[John Beard]

Cock on close generally requires a softer mainspring, longer firing pin stroke, and commensurately longer lock time. But that's about the only disadvantage I can think of.

J.B.

[Emri]

Cock on close generally requires a softer mainspring, longer firing pin stroke, and commensurately longer lock time. But that's about the only disadvantage I can think of.

J.B.

That pretty much sums it up. The only other thing I can think of is if one doesn't fire the rifle and opens the bolt while shouldering it he could get whacked in the face. I've never been hit in the face but have whacked my knuckles and wrist more than once over the years with cock on close rifles.

[Allen Humphrey]

I love shooting the 03's and A3's in CMP Games. That said, I used a M1917 in 2013 and again in 2014 for a "B" 200 yard match and shot some of my best rapid scores. 95 and 96 in sitting, and 97 and 99 in prone rapid. While it takes some getting used to, I found that the easier bolt lift was less disturbing to my position and that the added force to close the bolt is more consistent and in line with the bore. (as opposed to trying hard to rotate the bolt upwards on a sticky round)

Obviously my comments are related to target shooting and not to the true purpose of the rifles, so....take it for what it is worth.

[Art]

That pretty much sums it up. The only other thing I can think of is if one doesn't fire the rifle and opens the bolt while shouldering it he could get whacked in the face. I've never been hit in the face but have whacked my knuckles and wrist more than once over the years with cock on close rifles.

I don't think you'll get whacked in the face, at least with a Lee action since the firing mechanism actually decocks on opening. I'll take your word about the knuckles and wrist though I haven't experienced that but I've extremely limited experience with cock on close rifles other than the lee. One of the things I like about the Lee Enfields is that it's not necessary to move my face out of the way in rapid fire, you don't have to break your cheek weld. I once got whacked in the face by the cocking piece on an M1903A3 when I shot it rapid fire after firing a Lee Enfield and forgot to roll my cheek off the comb a little. That hurt...a lot.

Allen Humphrey, the same thing that you noticed in rapid fire on the range also translates to the true purpose of the weapon.

[PWC]

For John Beard - why would cock on close necessarily require a softer mainspring or longer lock time? I think the forward movement and inertia of the closing thrust would overcome spring tension. Also, why would the lock time have to be longer than 'standard'?

[leftyo]

no cock on close doesnt require a softer spring. the only real disadvantage of cock on close is it doesnt have the camming power on extraction to remove a stuck/sticking casing as effectively.

[PWC]

That doesn't seem right either. Not to be argumentative, but bolt lift in either one, slides the extractor around the rim to the top, and pulls the case out by muscle power. I thought the camming action took place when the locking lugs rotate into their recesses.

For me, it's the initial bolt lift, to overcome the spring, that's 'hard'; (especially in prone) much easier to overcome the spring on forward movement.

[jgaynor]

That doesn't seem right either. Not to be argumentative, but bolt lift in either one, slides the extractor around the rim to the top, and pulls the case out by muscle power. I thought the camming action took place when the locking lugs rotate into their recesses.

For me, it's the initial bolt lift, to overcome the spring, that's 'hard'; (especially in prone) much easier to overcome the spring on forward movement.

No the cocking and extraction cam surfaces are milled into the back end of the receiver and bolt. TM 9-1270 gives instructions as to how these cam surfaces can be smoothed with valve grinding compound (for the 03 famil anyway).

[PhillipM]

I'm a lefty and shot a friend's 1917 off the bench once. I slapped the bolt down like I do in my 03 and it sprung back, narrowly missing my face so I slapped it again and it sprung back again. That was enough cock on close for me. History has born out the superiority of cock on opening, at least in the marketplace, because I don't know of any commercial cock on close rifles available since the Remington 30.