Finally, you managed to answer the question; almost. You seem to have admitted that it is proper for the Remington to be able to cock on open when everything is as it should be. It only took four pages of BS and you blowing smoke to accomplish this.
We now know (in reality, we have known from the outset) that a properly timed bolt will allow the 700 to cock on open. This could have been revealed as part of a civil discussion, early on, but your default response to everything is to ridicule and denigrate. Now that we have gotten past this personality flaw though, perhaps we can just provide information. You can start by telling me which bolt action is not cock on open and cock on close (Hint: Any action with even a short cocking cam is, to a certain extent, partially cock on open. Any action in which the bolt moves forward as the handle is turned down,after the sear has contacted the cocking piece is, to a certain extent, cock on closing. It's all just semantics. ). Using your own measuring technique, you will notice that Model 70's, Mausers, Sakos, Rugers, etc., all accomplish a significant potion of the cocking sequence as the handle is turned down. By the way, in your instructive calculations, you forgot to add in the amount the bolt sleeve unscrews as the bolt is closed. In the case of the 700, the sleeve has a 12 TPI thread which gives us .0833 per revolution. This means 1/4 turn yields roughly 21 thou. So, if the difference, relative to the rear of the bolt sleeve, is .061 (an arbitrary figure I pulled out of thin air) then the actual amount of cocking which has taken place is about .082" (once again, arbitrary figure. Chosen as an example only). Anyway, actions vary as to the amount of cocking which is done as the bolt is closed. On a Mauser 98, it's a lot, on a 700, it's much less. In those actions which are categorized as cock on closing, most of the cocking occurs as the bolt is pushed forward but a portion of the cocking sequence is on opening and a further portion is as the bolt is turned down.
The importance of having the extraction camming surface take up the shock of the bolt being slammed forward (as in a rapid-fire scenario; as might occur in the field) becomes greater with rifle using an over-riding sear trigger. This especially in those instances where sear engagement is minimal. A military, two-stage trigger, with it's generous sear engagement, can handle a pretty significant shock load. A trigger like the Remington, with a narrow, shallow, engagement area, not so much. This why it is so difficult to adjust a Remington to a light, safe pull if the bolt timing is wrong. The sear engagement has to be too great to withstand the shock and the spring has to be set too tight to stop the connector from bouncing away.
This will be my last post on this thread as I think this horse is beyond dead. I apologize to any members I may have offended. That includes you, Dan! GD
