Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles So you don't like the Blaser R93...

That's Ok. All's fair in love, war and maybe with rifles too. But on occasion there's a thread citing the R93 and there is usually something written or implied in one post or another about how this straight-pull action cannot be safe. So far these have come as far as I can tell from someone who hasn't shot one let alone owned one.

While I have an R93 and several scoped barrels this is not an info-mercial, nor meant to be for or against. While cleaning out some old magazines last week I came across an article, "The Blaser R-93", by Jon Sundra in a Dec. '98 edition of Peterson's RifleShooter. It's about as definitive piece on this rifle I've seen and while there are many unique aspects to this rifle, I'll show an excerpt of the article that just describes the action to hopefully clear up some confusion on how this bolt locks up:

"On the Blaser it is the receiver that is the non-stressed component because the bolt locks up directly with the barrel. The receiver-such as it is, because it doesn't resemble nor does it function like a receiver of a conventional bolt-action rifle-serves as a place to store cartridges, keep the bolt aligned as it moves fore and aft, and to hang the fire-control system.

The actual bolt proper on the Blaser is a tiny thing about 21/2 inches long that's housed within a larger assembly we'll call the "bolt carrier." The head portion is but a half-inch long and .770 inches in diameter-sufficient to accommodate a belted magnum and still have a counterbored face surrounding the case rim. It is here on the bolt head that we find the only conventional aspects of the R-93--a plunger ejector and an extractor powered by a wire C-spring that resides in a groove around the bolt head.

A half-inch from its face the bolt head abruptly tapers down to form a shaft about .540 inches in diameter and about two inches long. It is the steel tube or sleeve that fits over this shank immediately behind the bolt head that is the heart of the Blaser locking system. A series of 14 lengthwise slits form 13 slender fingers some 1 1/2 inches long. At the front end of this tube is belled out to where it measures the same .770 inches as the bolt head

On the closing movement of the bolt handle, this sleeve is forced against the tapered cone behind the bolt head, forcing the fingers to expand the belled front end like petals of a flower. The expansion of this belled portion is not great--it swells from about .770 inches in its relaxed state, to about .900 inches when compressed, but as such forms an annular (or radial) locking lug that provides 360-degree contact with its matching grove inside the barrel."

On researching the R-93 in the early years of this decade there were rumors of rifle blow-ups that came down to only one documented incident at the time that occurred in Europe. This rifle (the shooter was not critically injured) was examined by an independent agency and the handloads used were determined forensically to have developed ~ 120,000 psi. This is not to say there have not been other incidents but I did not find them at the time or was able to confirm them.

If there is enough interest I could post a picture of the bolt system that would make the above description clearer.

Suffice it to say that there are well over 100k of these rifles in circulation for approaching 20 years now and looks and tradition aside, it looks like a design that works.

Two friends have tried to convert me to their R93's many times.

However, I am evidently a creature of habit and/or have too many decades of muscle memory on working a normal Mauser bolt. I do not seem to be able to break the habit of slapping the bolt handle 90 degrees up and back with my palm in a single motion as I was taught to on a Lee-Enfield back in Canada many years ago.

I grant you that the Blasers usually shoot very well, but I am sure that when I was shooting at something with hair on it I would get excited and try to twist the bolt handle off!

As Finn Aagaard wrote as the title of one of his fine articles, Make mine a Mauser... (and that would be a M98 style, not the Mauser straight pull model which is not a "real" Mauser to many!

John

As I said, "all's fair in love, war, and rifles."

i consider any bolt rifle w/o a 3 position roller tang safety, a bolt locking mechanism, a firing pin block where the firing pin is cammed out of alignment and a 120,000 PSI proof tested reciver to be unsafe.

It does not matter at what pressure generated the design fails - it matters where the designs weak points are.

In the R93 it is the radial lock - the technician at DEVA (the independent institution mentioned) acknowledged that in their expertise.

For whatever reason, in an R93, if pressure exeeds design strength the bolt blows back - into the shooters face.

I wonder which happens more often a shooter comes up with a defective load that exceeds 120,000psi or a gun has an accidental discharge in the field because of not using a safety properly, dropping a rifle etc.?

One of the really nice things about the R-93 is the Safety/Cocking peice. It's very easy and QUIET to cock the R-93, you can easily carry it uncocked with a round in the chamber and silently cock/take it off safety when game appears. With other centerfires the firing pin is still under tension when on safe with the R-93 it isn't. The R-93 safety is also a good bit quiter than most.

The R-93 may or may not handle stupid loads as well as a Mauser type rifle but it is much safer to carry in the field with a loaded chamber than just about any other centerfire rifle.

There are advantages and disadvantages to most different rifles................................DJ

Actually, the "~ 120,000 psi" should have been "well over 120,000 psi". If IIRC Blaser tests each rifle with proof loads that exceed 110,000 psi.

Yea, the cocking/decocking device is a good one but for me took getting used to.

+1000 the safety is a nice feature..the trigger is unreal

Wasn't aware of the R-93 safety allegations; I just never took to the looks (but I never warmed up to the Lee-Navy either). But I am glad they make them for the folks that like them.

I was just sitting here at work, browsing Gunbroker, wondering, does anyone really buy Blasers? There must be a thousand of them on there.

They may function and shoot nice, but they sure are ugly.

German engineers used to go about making designs that were as simple as possible. Lots of work goes into what appears to be a simple design, but when you put that work in, there are less things to go wrong when manufacturing and when opperating the final product.

To me the R93 is a step backwords in that philosophy.

I like simple elegant designs as I know what can go wrong in the real world. Me thinks many of todays designers and engineers are so far removed from the use of their end product, that they simply can't understand what happens in the real world, and what failure modes exist.

My personal opinion as far as aesthetics go?
If the blazer mated with a Glock the offspring would have to get destroyed due to ugliness.

That's interesting that you think it's not simple. It sounds strangely like the usual conviction by those who've not seen one, or looked one over, that it's an over-engineered piece of junk. While it is uniquely engineered, I could easily argue that it's not overly complex at all. Only one piece of the thing could be said to "be complex"

As to its looks, I've no argument. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I am bemused, however, by biases based on traditon and against anything non-traditional. Rifle loonys are a fickle lot.

Who said "only accurate rifles are interesting?" The R-93 is interesting.

So this is simpler than a conventional 2 lug bolt action?



I also fail to see how the complete rifle will be as rigid as a conventional action with the barrel threaded and torqued into the action.

I've worked in manufacturing and have seen what happens with clever designs and complex machinery. In real world conditions those clever designs don't work as reliably as simple designs.

What's the benefit of adding complexity and quick barrel changes? And what do you loose in the process? Every gun system I've seen that offers quick barrel changes has been a compromise. Why compromise?

I had the chance to buy one a while back at a deep discount but I never could get the working of the bolt right...

There's a guy who shoots at the range where I hang out who has one. He has 3 barrels. I will say it's the only switchable barrel rifle I've ever seen that every time he changes it - it is dead on.

Just not for me. I've only encountered one and that was while on an elk hunt. Did the deed for the guy who was shooting it.

Not simpler but complex to a fault? This is not an argument against the two- or three-lug system or for this 14-lug system. The argument for rigidity has always been accuracy; there is very little argument with the R-93s history of being very accurate so what does your "more rigid" traditional bolt gun give you, assuming it in fact is more rigid?

In fact, one design feature the R-93 has over traditional bolts, IMHO, is that the bolt lugs cam inside the barrel rather than inside the receiver.That seems simpler and intuitive to me.

As to reliability, your argument for simplicity is intuitively correct; yet, and it's only anecdotal, I've not had any or heard of any issues with the R-93. Somewhere, I'm sure, there have been some, like with anything else.

As to the "quick-change" system being a compromise? Why is it? I've found it pretty neat. Anyway, I would have been much more of a Mauser, CRF fan if I'd not been a southpaw or they would have been available in my youth in left-handers. As it is I bought an R-93 on a lark about 5 years ago and was ambivalent about it for quite a while but it has gained a friend through proving itself in the field. Because they make lefties, I've had R 700s for four decades and non have been more accurate even with their rigid three rings of steel so in my mind that cancels your "rigidity" argument.

If I have a motive here, it's to initiate a more objective look at it but I have no trouble for anyone who just doesn't like it.

heritage arms locally sells alot of blasers, those guns are smoking accurate I think you have to either get lucky or spend at least that much on a custom to match the accuracy, I like how the scope mounts mount to the barrel which in turn mounts into an aluminum block, its impossible to have a bedding issue with the r 93.

I would be more interested however the guns start out at about $2500, barrels are $600+ its just too much money, I can have a custom built with a kriger barrel, mcmillian stock by a big name smith for that kind of money.

Yes, the optics mounting to the barrel instead of a "separate receiver" is another advantage, at least theoretically, but like I said I didn't intend an R-93 add. And, there is no doubt that an entry level R-93 at about the mid-3k range is not insignificant and the barrels are relatively high too but I believe you can get them for the $550 range if you look around. The thing is once you have a first rifle, another barrel for that amount doesn't look too bad considering you have "another rifle."

Why would there ever be rigidity issues between the barrel and receiver if the bolt locks into the barrel not the receiver?

Every rifle I have ever seen breaks down. Why is one made to break down easy and be readily fitted with another barrel a comprise?