Arctic Style Precision Rig......Recommendations??

The stainless in the cold concern originated with Krieger. I have seen more failed Cr-Mo barrels than stainless ones, all resulting from having been fired with obstructions. The absolute worst from the standpoint of breaking with pieces flying around were Parker Hale. These barrels tended to fracture, others just split.
In the Arctic, stainless rifles are increasingly popular because they do not rust as badly or as rapidly as Cr-Mo ones when neglected. It is not uncommon for a rifle to be made worthless because of a pitted chamber; this is far more likely to happen with a CR-MO barrel.
Many scopes simply cannot be adjusted when solidly frozen.
By and large, the rifles in everyday use are the ones that are available. A Remington will work as well in the cold as anything else, anything can fail if not properly prepared.
I did see bolts spoiled by being held over Coleman stoves to thaw them after they had frozen up. Heat treatment spoiled, mainsprings collapsed. Ruger was particularly helpful with this, did a no cost replacement. Not at all unusual to see a rifle misfiring because the bolt had never, ever been disassembled and cleaned. Spring clogged with rust and sludge. I do agree that a Ruger Mk. 2 is as rugged an action as any. Savage bolts are most likely to fail when neglected, because of their complex fabricated design.
Injection moulded stocks seem less durable in the cold than wooden ones. Saw quite a number broken at the wrist. My personal preference would be for laminated.

I would assume that a "precision" rifle would be properly prepared, and used with care. Keeping a rifle covered to keep snow and frost off it is a really good idea. Carrying a slung, uncovered rifle on one's back on a snowmobile is an invitation to problems, ranging from snow in the barrel to a snow covered action and scope.
 
tiriaq, I am interested in your comment on the Savage's have trouble. Believe me, I have ZERO interest in testing this and whimp out below -5C so this is more for info then anything else.

I suspect that the Savage would be better simply because of all the separation in parts. bolt head floats so bolt has a less chance of jamming up. Sear is very simple and there is lots of clearance around everything.

That floating bolt heads also allows more slop in the bolt when cycling yet leaving a nice tight lock up.

Parts I could see being an issue are the extractor and ejector. Water getting in and freezing could lock these springs rendering them ineffective. But then, this design would affect many modern bolt actions.

Here a claw extractor and blade ejector can't fail as they are manual in operation. Plus 1 for the Rugers and Mausers BUT they could have issues with freezing the bolt body?

Just curious - hope to never put any of this to the test :)

Jerry
 
I've had 0 problems with my savage 110 fcp 300 win mag in manitoba and I go out when it's f**king cold... and I don't baby it either I, only light oil and clean it when accuracy drops off I shoot .75 - .5 moa consistently with hand loads out to 800 m.
my experience is that you do need an extreme cold load as even the temp stable powders have a hard time @ -15c and lower , I was shooting at only 100m in – 37c and my standard load was 2 mils low when I first found out that “temp stable” powders weren’t as stable as I hoped.
 
The problem which I have observed in neglected Savage bolts involves the cocking stud and the sleeve through which it passes into the cocking piece - the sleeve that must be slid to release the stud to disassemble. If this gets rust seized, the bolt stops working, and it is just about impossible to disassemble the bolt without writing off and replacing bits. The Savage extractor spring and ejector plunger and spring are no worse than anyone else's design.
I have seen Remington and Mauser bolts ruined by the use of force after the bolt sleeve threads have rust seized. Bolt handles snapped right off. Won't even mention remington 788 handles.
 
Back
Top Bottom