Remington 40-X vs. Bernard P

Armafix

Armafix

Regular
EE Expired
Rating - 99.2%
130   1   0
Location
Toronto ON
As the title says, how these two actions compare?
I have 40-X already and Bernard P is coming. They will be used to build Palma and F-class rifles. I have to decide which one goes where. Should I flip a coin or there is a better way to determine this? Thank you.

:cheers: Kazimier
 
Both are phenomenal actions.

The 40X would be the better choice for a Palma rifle as the action is a bit lighter and you have a bit more leeway with weight on the F-Class rifle.

I shoot F-Class with two local guys, one has a Barnard and the other has a 40X (Solid Bottom, not converted repeater), both are capable of winning on any given day.

Of course neither can compete with my XR-100 actions :D :nest:

My $0.02
 
Last edited:
They are not comparable. The 40X is a good example of a 1960's commercial target action. The Barnard is a good example of a modern precision action. Tolerances are closer. Machining is better in all respects (fit, finish, and dimensional consistency).
This is not to say that a properly built 40X based rifle can't shoot with a Barnard based rifle. It can. However, it is easier to work with a quality custom action.
One thing which has always struck me when comparing American actions to actions like the Barnard or the RPA is that the foreign built actions are HARD. They operate more smoothly and there is less likelyhood of locking lug galling.
I use Remington or other commercial actions for my own rifles because I don't pay myself too much for remedial work. If I was still building for others though, I would just as soon use an action like the Barnard. Regards, Bill.
 
CyaN1de said:
Both are phenomenal actions.

The 40X would be the better choice for a Palma rifle as the action is a bit lighter and you have a bit more leeway with weight on the F-Class rifle.
Click to expand...

The weight restrictions are on F Class not TR under the new ICFRA rules.

ICFRA Rules for TR
"T2.2. Weight: There is no weight limit placed on the rifle."

ICFRA Rules for F Class
F2.2. An ‘F’ Class Open rifle may be of any calibre up to and including 8mm and the overall
weight must not exceed 10kg including all attachments (such as, but not limited to, its sights
and bipod, if any). NB: An ‘attachment’ is defined as including any external object (other
than the competitor, his sling (if any) and his apparel) which recoils (or partially recoils)
with the rifle, or which is clamped, magnetically or viscously held, or in any other way
joined to the rifle for each shot, or which even slightly rises with the rifle when vertically
lifting the latter from its rest(s).
F2.3. An ‘F’ Class Restricted rifle is limited to .223 Remington or .308 Winchester calibre
chambers or their commercial metrification equivalents. Chamber dimensions must conform
to SAAMI or CIP dimensions. Ammunition may be commercially made or hand-loaded as
defined in Rule F2.23. There is no restriction on bullet weight. The Restricted rifle class is
limited to the use of an attached bipod and/or a sling as front supports, optionally together
with a rear bag which provides no positive mechanical means of returning the rifle to its
precise point of aim for the next shot . The overall weight must not exceed 8.25kg including
all attachments (such as, but not limited to, its sights and bipod, if any). NB: An ‘attachment’
is defined as in Rule F2.2. All other Technical Rules apply.
 
I thought TR had a weight restriction...I have been corrected.

I guess if YOU are supporting the rifle there really would be no advantage to a heavier gun as you would just tire more quickly.

Haven't tried TR so I don't know if a heavier gun would make that much difference.
 
A heavier gun does make a difference to a certain point. Until ICFRA rules came into play we did have a max weight of 6.5 Kg. Sadly not all counties are ICFRA compilant yet, the Brit are dragging their heels of coures. So anyone going over on the Canadian Bisley Team still needs their rifles to make the 6.5 kg weight and have a 3.5 lbs trigger.
 
It was changed last year for the DCRA, down to 1 Kg. I didn't see one person even come close to failing the trigger weight when they shot a possible.
 
The Barnard action is a great base to a competition rifle as they really are exceptional in most every way....Including value. The Remington is lighter, but really is clunky by comparison and it should be blueprinted to be competitive.

Different strokes and all that, but if you have the wherewithal to afford a little bit nicer action they are certainly one of the nicer ways to go.
The Barnard may in fact be cheaper than a completed 40X.

Not that I think it effects accuracy, but a blueprinted Remington "shoots in" and gets sloppier with age, while the Barnard actions start tight and stay tight while keeping the "bank vault" tight lockup.
 
Some of you guys didn't read my first post very carefully. I don't want to buy a 40X action, I have one for years already. It came with Remington 40X-BR rifle.
I know that Barnard actions are superior to 40X and I'm going to buy one.
X-fan, it is a news to me that 40X action requires blueprinting. I did some homework on this subject and all the sources I checked say quite opposite. This is why I'm not in a hurry to ditch it.

:cheers: Kazimier
 
40X or any custom action still need some blueprinting. Even custom actions can sometimes be not quite true. Having had both I've seen it. Mind you some custom actions need only a slight tuneup. My 69' era 40X was very true like a custom action. Cannot speak about the new 40X's.
 
Last edited:
I beg to differ on the comment that custom actions require accurization. I have never seen a Nesika, BAT, Surgeon, Panda, RPA or Barnard that required accurization.
 
The things you are going to need to look at are weight distribution, ease of loading, bolt throw and the amount of disturbance operation the action.

The Barnard is noticeable heavier then the Remington and with the same components will have a balance point closer to the receiver when slung up into the shoulder.
Balance is important to comfort and if you’re not comfortable your position will suffer.

Bolt throw Barnard’s have a shorter but firmer bolt throw then Remington’s. Will this be a hindrance or help to you. Most folks like to stay in position with a minimal amount of disturbance. Personal preference (Ask TR guys if they prefer to load from the shoulder or out of position and why)? Check out the number of guys that have added tape or other items to the end of the bolt to improve the comfort of working the bolt

How easy it is to access the loading port do you have to reach or too short to load or is the port at a comfortable distance.

It’s seems apparent that this is no longer a Barnard vs. Remington but a personal preference between the two for fit and comfort. Hands down the Barnard is 3 fold better then the Remington in almost every fascist of design except one WEIGHT. That one difference has moved some people away from Barnards because it didn’t fit right to them.

F Class has a weight limit 8.25kg for F/TR and 10kg for F/Open. This may be a factor when selecting but unlike TR you don’t have to support the rifle yourself and this changes the requirements which action to choose.

As to blue printing 40x are noticeable better then the standard Remington action but too many of them need to be squared up and blue printed to safely say they are good to go. The opposite is true for most custom actions

For me if i were to build a TR rifle with one of these actions i would go with the Barnad as the heavier weight would put the balance point closer to the action and not out over my support arm. (please note i do not compete in TR) FClass only
 
the 40x is not a custom action......
they still require trueing the same as any other factory action, some are better than others, thats the way factory quality control is.
The 40x is a desired factory action, because unlike the 700's. 7's, 600's etc. it is a single shot action and therefore stiffer.
 
Obtunded said:
I beg to differ on the comment that custom actions require accurization. I have never seen a Nesika, BAT, Surgeon, Panda, RPA or Barnard that required accurization.
Click to expand...
I cannot comment on those actions because I've never owned one or worked on one. I suppose it comes down to gunsmiths opinions then as to how good the tolerances and designs are in each make.
 
So what currently produced custom actions can you comment on?
Some earlier custom benchrest actions were less than perfect. In fact, some Shilen DGA actions were unbelievably poor. I also saw one Wichita 1375 which was a little off. I've not seen any of the currently produced custom actions which were notably flawed. Some, which are intended as hunting or tactical actions (Stiller, Borden etc.) may have greater clearances but are still square and concentric.
The 40XBR action did receive some extra attention at the factory but the 40X did not. Either is a good action but they are not on a par with the customs.
Armafix, you asked for a comparison, 40X vs Barnard, and this is what you got. If you have a 40X, by all means, use it. It is a good basis for an accurate rifle. If you want someone to tell you it is every bit as good as a Barnard; that's not going to happen. Regards, Bill.
 
Duck_Hunter said:
the 40x is not a custom action......
they still require trueing the same as any other factory action, some are better than others, thats the way factory quality control is.
The 40x is a desired factory action, because unlike the 700's. 7's, 600's etc. it is a single shot action and therefore stiffer.
Click to expand...

My 40XB was deisgned with an internal mag and had the cut out for a stripper clip. It was made for cross the course shooting. When I had it rebuilt to a prone gun by Corben1 he turned it into a single shot. He also told me he did have to true it up slightly.
The new custom target actions should not need to be blue printed or trued up in anyway, that's what you pay the big bucks for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom