A comparision of loading ports between the various rifles...

[Tim S]

Hmm, the diagram of the FWB 2700 is a little optimistic. The rear/breech line seems to be where the bolt handle is when open. The chamber is actually above the trigger, just inside the back of the receiver.

Still it's very short, if very fiddly.

[ShootWithStyle]

Hmm, the diagram of the FWB 2700 is a little optimistic. The rear/breech line seems to be where the bolt handle is when open. The chamber is actually above the trigger, just inside the back of the receiver.

Still it's very short, if very fiddly.

I'll revise as necessary, once I can see one up close.

Remember, this is about the loading port, or the open area you can actually drop a round in. The actual chamber is still forward of the port.

[Tim S]

I'll revise as necessary, once I can see one up close.

Remember, this is about the loading port, or the open area you can actually drop a round in. The actual chamber is still forward of the port.

There are some close up photos on the Stirton.com site: http://forum.stirton.com/index.php?/top ... 18/&page=2

There isn't a loading port in the conventional sense, as the receiver stops behind the lug recesses. The bolt isn't contained within the receiver; it rides on rails behind the receiver instead. When open the bolt face looks to be level with the front of the grip. It is super-short.

[ShootWithStyle]

Thank you Tim,

I'm not able to see the Stirton photos, but I saw the ones provided by Svensta on another post.

Based on the limited information from that photo it looked like there is still a load tray in front of the chamber, so one can conceivably still just place a round on the tray and push it forward into the chamber with the bolt. I need to see the rifle from the opposite point of view to see how the bolt face is shaped.

[Tim S]

There isn't a conventional loading tray either. The bolt has three locking lugs at the front, with in-built horizontal extractor claws. Best guess is that the lugs are part of an outer rotating sleeve a la Bleiker and Grunig. The loading tray is formed from the parallel guide rods that the bolt runs on.

[ShootWithStyle]

There isn't a conventional loading tray either. The bolt has three locking lugs at the front, with in-built horizontal extractor claws. Best guess is that the lugs are part of an outer rotating sleeve a la Bleiker and Grunig. The loading tray is formed from the parallel guide rods that the bolt runs on.

Very interesting. I can't wait to head back to Europe and see one up close.

Unfortunately, it will probably be some time before these make their way to the USA.

[groverdog1]

Given we are all built differently, different lengths between the buttstock and pistol grip, should you not focus on the distance the loading port is from the pistol grip.?

Regardless of whether it's in relation to the trigger or pistol grip, closer is better.

The relationship / distance between the loading port and the pistol grip is all important, if it were not, everyone would shorten their buttplate length all the way in having the effect of bringing the loading port closer to the head. Most cannot do so because the length of pull and right hand position will not support a proper overall position. That said, a loading port stationed at or near the pistol grip will allow one to maintain a proper position and load the rifle more easily. The best example of such is the pic of the BSA above. Mark

[marky-d]

Although I am not a precision shooter, another thing I'll note is that it seems like the loading port is only half of the equation -- isn't the location of the bolt handle (and length of bolt travel) just as important? It seems like the important factor is that the non-Anschutz manufacturers have minimized the distance between the bolt handle and the loading port, so they can BOTH be positioned optimally, while the Anschutz designs have to choose one or the other.

marky-d

[ShootWithStyle]

Although I am not a precision shooter, another thing I'll note is that it seems like the loading port is only half of the equation -- isn't the location of the bolt handle (and length of bolt travel) just as important? It seems like the important factor is that the non-Anschutz manufacturers have minimized the distance between the bolt handle and the loading port, so they can BOTH be positioned optimally, while the Anschutz designs have to choose one or the other.

marky-d

Manufacturers have been able to move the loading port back because they've significantly reduced the length of their bolts and moved the bolt handle to the middle of the bolt in most cases. So it all goes hand in hand. Just look at the overall package.

Anschutz still has their bolt handle at the rear of the bolt and only cut off 30mm from the front, which results in a bolt still significantly longer and the loading port considerable further away from the shooter.

And as far as the pistol group, the trigger is always in front of it. So whether its in relation the the pistol grip or the trigger, closer is better. Unless you want to mount your pistol grip in front of the trigger.

[ShootWithStyle]

Added a couple of the less common smallbore rifles to the original post.

Rieder und Lenz and Tesro.

J

[Tim S]

Manufacturers have been able to move the loading port back because they've significantly reduced the length of their bolts and moved the bolt handle to the middle of the bolt in most cases. So it all goes hand in hand. Just look at the overall package.

Anschutz still has their bolt handle at the rear.

It:s more than just the position of the handle. Bleiker and Grunig could put the handle anywhere, because both bolts front locking, with a rotating outer sleeve. This means the cocking cam isn't physically part the handle. The Anschutz is a conventional design, only the handle rotates, so the cocking cam has to be there, so too does the trigger.

Anschutz could have changed the firing pin, so the bent (trigger catch) was in the middle, but that would have been a larger project. The Walther KK500 us a conventional non-rotating bolt, but the firing pin/trigger is further forwards, so the breech is closer.

[teegan8or]

It looks like three of your images are broken. Anyway, I was looking at getting a FWB 2800 or a KK500. And from the picture of the FWB (one of the broken ones), the loading port looks to be even closer than the Walther. The other thing that I want to consider is the length of pull, because I don't have very long arms. So I am curious, Which of these two rifles has the shorter length of pull?

also, you mentioned the fact that Anschutz has fallen behind... take a look at their new rifle (there are only 2 videos of it, as it has not hit the market yet) the bolt design is very bizare, and the loading port looks to be directly above the trigger.
https://targettalk.org/viewtopic.php?t=65373

[Tim S]

It looks like three of your images are broken...

also, you mentioned the fact that Anschutz has fallen behind...

This thread was started in 2016, six years ago, and the last post before your's is four years old. Also the OP hasn't logged onto this forum in nearly a year. So it's not surprising that it's no longer up to date.

Why not start a new post about LOP? You might get more replies.

[rpm]

How would this apply to air rifles?